2018 (2) TMI 1262 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - assessee provided taxable as well as exempted services which calls for maintenance of separate accounts on credit availed on input services - Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 - Held that - There is no separate identifiable service attributable to investment portion of the premium in the present case. In other words the premium amount received was invested substantially and for managing such investment, administration charges are collected and Service Tax paid. No other service, least of all exempted service, could be identified in such arrangement - we are in agreement with the method of calculation adopted by the Original Authority in arriving at the portion of exempted service/ taxable service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 76 for failure to pay service tax.
2. Application of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding maintenance of separate accounts for taxable and exempted services.
3. Consideration of investment portion of premium as exempted service.

Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 76:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 76, arguing that the issue primarily revolved around the application of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and not the failure to pay service tax. The Tribunal concurred, highlighting that the amount to be paid under Rule 6(3) does not constitute service tax and, therefore, does not attract the penalty under Section 76. Citing precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76.

2. Rule 6(3) Compliance:
The dispute centered on the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for taxable and exempted services as mandated by Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that the investment portion of the premium should be considered as exempted service, necessitating a recalibration of the reversal amount. In response, the appellant argued that the investment management services provided were fully taxed, including administrative charges, and no distinct exempted service existed. The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority's calculation, emphasizing that no identifiable exempted service related to the investment portion could be discerned, thereby supporting the maintenance of the reversal amount.

3. Treatment of Investment Portion:
Regarding the treatment of the investment portion of the premium, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of services provided by the appellant. It noted that the appellant managed investments and risk cover under ULIP policies, with service tax paid on administrative charges for investment management. The Revenue's contention that the investment amount should be treated as exempted service was refuted, as no separate exempted service was identifiable in the arrangement. The Tribunal concurred with the Original Authority's approach in determining the exempted service portion, affirming the taxability of the services provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant, setting aside the penalty under Section 76, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscored the distinction between service tax liabilities and compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of maintaining separate accounts for taxable and exempted services as per Rule 6(3).