2019 (9) TMI 245 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - insurance premium to ensure the deposits of its constituents with it to the different Insurance and Guarantee Corporation - HELD THAT - Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the impugned order dated 12th February, 2019 of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Revenue to the extent it has not imposed any penalty upon the appellant. Mr. Jelty, states that the appeal has been filed and the objections of the Registry are to be removed. Mr. Jetly, further undertakes to remove the objections within one week, so the Revenue s appeal as well as the appellants appeal could be heard together - This appeal along with the Revenue s appeal, particulars of which would be given by Mr. Jetly to the Court Associate, be listed on 13th September, 2019. Stand over to 13th September, 2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance premium.
3. Referral of the issue to a larger bench due to contrary decisions of coordinate benches.
4. Imposition of penalty by the Tribunal.
5. Listing of appeals for joint hearing.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenges the order of the Tribunal dated 12th February, 2019, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant raises substantial questions of law regarding the entitlement to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance premium to ensure deposits of constituents with different Insurance and Guarantee Corporation. The appellant contends that the Tribunal should have referred the issue to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions in similar cases.

2. Mr. Raichandani, representing the appellant, argues that the issue of Cenvat credit is in favor of the appellant based on decisions in cases of DCB Bank Ltd. and Punjab National Bank by the Tribunal. The appellant's grievance is that instead of following these decisions, the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a larger bench. Mr. Raichandani highlights that in subsequent cases, the Tribunal has referred the same issue to a larger bench for resolution.

3. The appellant requests that the impugned order be set aside, and the appeal be listed with other matters referred to the larger bench for a fresh decision on merits. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, representing the Revenue, challenges the Tribunal's order for not imposing a penalty on the appellant. He assures the removal of objections within a week to facilitate a joint hearing of the Revenue's appeal and the appellant's appeal.

4. The parties are informed that the appeals may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission on the next hearing date, which is scheduled for 13th September, 2019. The Court directs the matter to stand over to the said date for further proceedings and potential finalization of the appeal.