2015 (12) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - exemption under Notification No. 9/2002, dated 1-8-2002 - Insurance Auxiliary Services - Held that - It is to be noted that the period involved is prior to the notification of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the period Rules prescribed one-to-one correspondence between input service and output service for eligibility to credit. Further there was no concept of deemed output service provider as in the case of Rule 2(p) in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - As per the rules which existed at the relevant time, this was not an input service for any taxable output service provided by the appellant and they did not qualify for the credit as claimed. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of tax liability for services provided by insurance agents in relation to life insurance services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Eligibility of Cenvat credit for services utilized in payment of tax liability under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The judgment addresses the issue of tax liability concerning services provided by insurance agents in connection with life insurance services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was providing life insurance services exempted from tax, while the Insurance Auxiliary Services provided by insurance agents were taxable. The appellant was paying the tax for services rendered by insurance agents under the special mechanism of Section 68(2). The Revenue contended that the services received by the appellant could not be utilized for payment of tax liability under Section 68(2), leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent adjudication confirming a demand against the appellant.

The Tribunal considered the argument put forth by the appellant regarding their eligibility for Cenvat credit for services utilized in payment of tax liability under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The period in question predated the notification of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which required a one-to-one correspondence between input service and output service for credit eligibility. The Tribunal noted that there was no concept of a "deemed output service provider" as in the later Cenvat Credit Rules.

Based on the rules existing at the relevant time, the Tribunal concluded that the services in question were not considered input services for any taxable output service provided by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant did not qualify for the claimed Cenvat credit. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was deemed not maintainable, and it was rejected by the Tribunal. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the specific rules and provisions in force during the relevant period for determining eligibility for tax credits and liabilities.