2022 (8) TMI 705 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Insurance services - exempt service has been provided by applicant or not - applicability of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that services provided by the assessee is insurance auxiliary services concerning life insurance. Any service under this category is covered by Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules. CESTAT has rightly analysed the position and following the decision of CESTAT of Delhi in MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS CCE AND ST (LTU) , DELHI AND VICE-VERSA 2018 (2) TMI 1262 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that since no exempt service has been provided by the assessee, it is entitled for the CENVAT credit. There are no error in the order passed by the CESTAT - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether CESTAT was correct in setting aside the Order-in-Original (OIO) and allowing the appellant's appeal regarding CENVAT credit on insurance auxiliary service?
2. Whether reliance on a specific CESTAT-Delhi order was appropriate by CESTAT?
3. Whether the CESTAT's decision to set aside the Order and allow the appeal was justified?

Analysis:
1. The case involved an Insurance Company providing Life Insurance policies, including unit-linked policies with taxable risk coverage premiums and non-taxable investment premiums. The appellant claimed CENVAT credit on service tax paid for commissions to agents. The Commissioner disallowed the credit, citing the exemption of tax on the investment portion. However, CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, stating no exempt service was provided, thus Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules did not apply. The Revenue appealed, arguing the Commissioner's decision was correct. The Court upheld CESTAT's decision, emphasizing the relevant Rule's omission post the period in question and the applicability of insurance auxiliary services under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 6.

2. The appellant's counsel highlighted the omission of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 6 post-May 2008, allowing full credit for services like Insurance Auxiliary Services until March 2011. The Court acknowledged the omission and its impact on the case period (April 2005 to May 2008). The Court's detailed examination of the Rule's provisions and the specific service category involved supported CESTAT's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents like the CESTAT-Delhi order cited.

3. The Court's analysis focused on the legal framework, including the non-obstante clause in Rule 6, the omitted Sub-rule 5, and the definition of taxable services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act. By aligning the facts with the law, the Court concluded that since no exempt service was provided by the appellant, they were entitled to the CENVAT credit. The decision was based on a thorough review of the legal provisions, precedents, and the specific nature of the services involved, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of CENVAT credit rules to insurance auxiliary services, emphasizing the absence of exempt services as the basis for allowing the appellant's appeal. The detailed legal analysis, including references to relevant provisions and precedents, supported the Court's decision to uphold CESTAT's ruling, highlighting the importance of legal interpretation and factual alignment in tax matters.