9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms Gouri, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This application is filed by the applicant/assessee for seeking rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/30187- 30189/2019 dated 08.02.2019. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Both sides submit that the error is only typographical and will not alter the outcome of the final order dated 08.02.2019. 4. On consideration of the submissions made we find it so. The errors which are sought to be typographical error they are rectified and tabulated as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice that had been rendered in as much as the regulation specifically stated that the said charges were to be recovered only to recoup the expenses already incurred towards procurement, administration of the policy and incidental thereto and encourage policyholder to continue with the contract for the full term, to ensure the charges reflect the actual expenses incurred. All that the said regulation prescribed was the manner in which surrender value was to be arrived at which hitherto, was not provided for the regulation applied only in respect of policies issued after 01.07.2010 and were completely irrelevant insofar policies issued prior to that date so concerned. Reliance placed by the Adjudicating Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed as raising a demand and even otherwise the primary input service credit availed by the appellant assessee was in respect of insurance auxiliary service to which the restrict of for which tax liability does not apply as has been held by the Hon ble Mumbai Tribunal It is his submission that the appellant was not rendering any non-taxable or exempted services and has availed credit attributable to the inputs and input services were correctly availed and provisions of Rule 6 cannot be invoked in the case in hand. It is also his further submission that for the demand under Rule 6, it is partially beyond 5 years which is the maximum period prescribed for raising a demand and even otherwise the primary inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his right to receive the insurance money. 7. Line 1 of Para 12 While, it is true that the expression of service under Section 65B(44) only w.e.f. 01.07.2012 While, it is true that the expression service is defined under Section 65B(44) only w.e.f. 01.07.2012 8. Line 5 of Para 12 It has to be also noted that for the period prior to 01.07.2012, for an activity to be tax it had to qualify as a taxable service in one of the specified services. It has to be also noted that for the period prior to 01.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Line 16 and 18 of Para 18 We find that Revenue in it is appeal has not disputed any of these findings, all that Revenue has contended in the appeal is that the Adjudicating Authority has traverse beyond the scope of the remand order dated 15.05.2014 of the Tribunal We find that Revenue in its appeal has not disputed any of these findings, all that Revenue has contended in the appeal is that the Adjudicating Authority has traversed beyond the scope of the remand order dated 15.05.2014 of the Tribunal 13. Line 9 and 10 of Para 21 The mere fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
