9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n administrative matters. The only service rendered is between the co-insurers and the policy holder. For this service, the insurance premium is received in full by the lead insurer and after payment of service tax on the entire amount, the rest is distributed among the co-insurer on the basis of their agreed shares - the entire insurance premium has already suffered tax at the time of its receipt in the hands of the lead insurer - demand set aside - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/70930/2013 - ORDER NO. FO/A/75916/16 - Dated:- 9-8-2016 - Shri H. K. Thakur, Member (Technical) And Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Senior Advocate for the Appellant Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mium has been received and distributed to co-insurer and the liability of applicable service tax has been discharged. Service tax having been collected/paid on the entire premium amount, there cannot be any demand of service tax on the proportionate amount thereof by National Insurance Company. Consideration for a service cannot be taxed twice from two different persons; Certificates issued by Chartered Accountant of different leader insurance companies in this regard have already been submitted in the course of hearing; Coinsurance cannot be equated with reinsurance; No service rendered by NIC to lead insurer and none disclosed[Sec.65(105)(d)]; The share received is not a consideration u/s 67 therefore not taxable u/s 66; Burden of tax c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence before the Adjudicating Authority that service tax compliances were made in respect of the entire premium received by the lead insurer. In his rejoinder the Ld. Counsel argues that this is a baseless contention and there is no contractor/sub-contractor relationship in this agreement. 4. Heard both sides and on perusal of appeal record we find that the dispute aroused after 01.05.2006 pursuant to the amendment to the definition of insurer under Clause (58) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue is no more res-integra and has been considered by the Commissioner (Central Excise and Service Tax) LTU, Chennai, in detail, and the demand against the co-insurer was dropped, vide Order-in-Original No.LTUC/15 16/2008-C dated 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
