2007 (7) TMI 192 - AT - Service Tax

Activity of Motor Insurance - reference made by the appellants for exemption under section 36 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act is not applicable for levy of service tax under the Finance Act - appellants ought to have obtained clarification from the Central Govt. or they should have approached the Central Govt. for granting exemption appellant have not done the same so duty is payable as Insurance Business - plea raised by the appellants on time bar is also rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to service tax levy on Motor Insurance activity, jurisdiction of authority, invocation of larger period.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the Order-in-Appeal levying service tax on Motor Insurance activity, claiming exemption under section 36 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. They argued against the jurisdiction of the authority to recover the tax and challenged the invocation of a larger period.

2. The learned DR argued that the exemption under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 does not apply to service tax matters related to Motor Vehicles Insurance. He emphasized that the appellants failed to seek clarification or pay the service tax in time, leading to non-registration under the Finance Act, 1994. Despite multiple adjournments, the appellants did not appear to argue their case.

3. The Tribunal noted that the matter had been adjourned 18 times, with the appellants being represented by their advocate or a government representative. Despite opportunities, the appellants did not take advantage. The written submissions were considered, but the lack of specific Circular or Notification granting exemption from service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 was noted. The reference to the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act for exemption was deemed inapplicable.

4. After careful consideration of submissions and counters, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not obtain clarification or exemption from the Central Government, nor did they declare details under the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, their plea on the time bar was rejected, and they were directed to pay the service tax. No penalty was imposed by the Additional Commissioner, as the appellant was a State Government Department, and no appeal was filed on this point. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Order-in-Appeal for service tax levy on Motor Insurance activity.