Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (2) TMI 1195 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Disallowance of credit of service tax paid on various insurance policies.

Analysis:
1. Dispute Overview: The appellants received a Show Cause Notice proposing to disallow the credit of service tax paid on several insurance policies. The original authority disallowed the credit for certain services, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the credit for workmen compensation policy but disallowed it for other insurance policies, prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

2. Arguments by Appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the rejected insurance policies were essential for indemnifying risks arising in the manufacturing business. Various policies like Money Insurance, Public Liability Insurance, Product Liability Insurance, Loss of Profit for Unit, and Fidelity Guarantee Policy were availed to cover different aspects of potential losses. The counsel cited relevant case laws to support the argument.

3. Arguments by Respondent: The respondent's representative supported the decision to disallow the credit, stating that the services fell under the exclusion part and were not directly related to manufacturing activities.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the nature of each insurance policy and its relevance to manufacturing activities. It found that insurances like Money Insurance, Public Liability Insurance, Product Liability Insurance, Loss of Profit for Unit, and Fidelity Guarantee Policy were indeed related to manufacturing activities based on precedents and case laws cited by the appellant. Consequently, the disallowance of credit for these policies was deemed unjustified and set aside. However, in the case of the Group Personal Accident policy, the appellant failed to provide evidence that the policy only covered employees without separate premiums for dependents. As a result, the credit disallowance for this policy was upheld. Despite upholding the disallowance, the penalty imposed was considered unwarranted and set aside.

5. Final Verdict: The impugned order was modified to set aside the disallowance of credit for most services except the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The penalty related to the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy was also set aside. The appeals were partly allowed with consequential relief as applicable.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates