2018 (5) TMI 1218 - AT - Service Tax

Reversal of CENVAT credit - amounts received by the appellant were more than the amount on which service tax was paid. Revenue entertained a view that the balance amount was also a service and it was an exempted service - invocation of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - the value on which Revenue has demanded amount under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 of CCR 2004 does not represent value of exempted services - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of taxable service under Clause (zx) of Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994.
2. Applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the balance amount received by the appellant.
3. Validity of the demand for payment under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Consideration of the remaining amount received from policy holders as exempted service.
5. Imposition of penalty and interest on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of taxable service under Clause (zx) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, engaged in providing Life Insurance Service, was paying service tax on the component representing risk cover in life insurance. The Revenue contended that the balance amount received by the appellant was also a service, considered exempted, and subject to payment under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellant argued that the amount received from policy holders could be divided into three parts: risk cover, investments, and overheads. They contended that the amount already subjected to service tax was for risk cover, and the remaining amount did not qualify as consideration for providing any service. The show cause notice failed to establish that the balance amount was consideration for any service, challenging the presumption made by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions and provisions of law, found that the value demanded by the Revenue under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not represent the value of exempted services. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief as per law.

4. The judgment did not delve into the penalty and interest imposed on the appellant, focusing primarily on the interpretation of taxable services and the applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision provided clarity on the treatment of the balance amount received by the appellant and emphasized the necessity for proper establishment of consideration for services in tax disputes.

5. The legal representatives for both the appellant and the Revenue presented their arguments, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on a thorough analysis of the definitions and provisions of relevant laws. The judgment highlighted the importance of precision and clarity in tax assessments, ensuring that demands are based on valid legal grounds and established considerations for services provided.