9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 503 - AT - Service TaxEligibility of CENVAT credit - Input services or not - insurance service - Gold Care warranty scheme - premium for the master insurance policy issued to the appellant - The Cenvat credit was denied on the ground that, Insurance Company was providing service in relation to insurance of the gold belonging to the customers of the appellant and which was purchased from the appellant. - HELD THAT - The issue in present appeals is similar to the issue considered by Larger bench in the matter of M/s South Indian Bank (supra) and held that insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an input service and Cenvat credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering output services . Similarly in the matter of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX CUSTOMS, BANGALORE (ADJUDICATION) , THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2015 (5) TMI 68 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , the issue that came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court was whether an assessee can avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on re-insurance services by treating the said service as an input service . PNB Metlife India Insurance Company was carrying on life insurance business and on the insurance policy issued by it, service tax was charged from the customers. It also procured re-insurance service from overseas insurance companies and availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such services received by it. The Cenvat credit was denied by the Department for the reason that re-insurance service cannot be considered as an input service since it takes place after the insurance policy is issued. The Hon ble High Court noted that since re-insurance has to be taken under Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, it is a statutory obligation and, therefore, has to be considered as having nexus with the output service and, therefore, would be an input service , for which Cenvat credit can be availed. Hon ble High Court held that We only reiterate that the issuance of insurance policy by insurer, and then taking of reinsurance by it, is a continuous process, and in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the same would not be an input service eligible for Cenvat credit within the meaning of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 . Further, held that denial of such CENVAT credit would be against the ethos of Cenvat credit policy, as the same would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible in law. Regarding finding of the Adjudicating authority denying the benefit on the ground that the document produced by the appellant are without proper serial number, considering the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 on Financial Institutions and also by considering the proviso of Rule 4(a)(1) Service Tax Rules, 1994, any document by whatever named called would be used in the place of an invoice, bill or challan. Thus, the reason given by the Adjudicating authority for such finding is per se illegal and unsustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Eligibility of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services provided by M/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. to the appellant.
Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit The appellant, engaged in retail business of gold jewelry, sought CENVAT credit for service tax paid on insurance services provided by M/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. The adjudicating authority denied the credit, stating the insurance service was not an input service. The appellant argued that insurance service was integral to its business and cited precedents where similar services were considered input services. The Larger Bench decision in the matter of M/s South Indian Bank affirmed that insurance services can be considered input services. The appellant also relied on judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to support their claim. The appellant contended that the denial of credit based on technicalities of document requirements was unjustified. The Tribunal, considering the arguments and precedents, held that the CENVAT credit on service tax paid by the Insurance Company should not be denied and must be considered as an input service received by the appellant. Issue 2: Denial of benefit based on document technicalities The adjudicating authority had denied the benefit of CENVAT credit based on the lack of proper serial numbers on documents provided by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found this reasoning to be illegal and unsustainable, citing provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and the Service Tax Rules, which allow flexibility in document requirements for financial institutions. Therefore, the denial of benefit on document technicalities was deemed unjustified. Issue 3: Penalty imposition The appellant had availed the CENVAT credit in good faith, believing that insurance services were eligible input services. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of suppression of transaction details by the appellant to warrant penalty imposition. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant was considered unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the CENVAT credit on service tax paid by the Insurance Company should not be denied and must be considered as an input service received by the appellant. The denial of benefit based on document technicalities was deemed illegal, and the penalty imposition was considered unjustified. Consequential relief, if any, was granted in accordance with the law. (Order pronounced in Open Court on 08. 02. 2024)
|
