9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch otherwise they are eligible. After appreciating the facts and noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit after which the refund has been sanctioned to the appellant, it is opined that the denial of credit is without any legal or factual basis. The impugned order set aside - The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Assessee : Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate For the Department : Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner / A.R. Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner / A.R. ORDER Order : Per Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. The issue involved in both these appeals being connected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. The parties hereby are referred to as assessee and Department for the sake of convenience. 2.1 Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in providing the services of General Insurance business and having centralized registration for the services in the nature of General Insurance Business, Insurance Auxiliary Services Renting of Immovable Property Services. They could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2014 was passed rejecting the refund claim that was earlier granted to the assessee and thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Department. Against such order, the assessee has filed appeal No. ST/41446/2014. 3.1 The Ld. counsel Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman appeared and argued for the assessee. The assessee is providing taxable services under the category of General Insurance service. These services are output service which covers miscellaneous insurance business relating to risks involved in using motor vehicle insurance, general insurance which covers fire, etc.,. The cost of value of such general insurance service on which Service Tax is paid by the assessee includes the value or cost of input service provided by Authorised Service Station. The Department has proposed to reject the credit alleging that the invoices mention the name of the owner of the vehicle / owner of the dredger, etc., and therefore as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the documents are not correct for availing the credit. In this context, the sequence of the transaction was explained as under:- i. The following parties are involved in the transaction viz., the Buyer / Owner of the vehicle, the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set of processes referred to above to the extent covered by the policy. e) Neither the customer nor the Authorized Service Station can take any unilateral decision in effecting repairs/ replacements. f) The obligation to settle the claim is only on the assessee, the insurance company. As a business practice, the invoices in all cases are raised by the Authorized Service Station only in the name of the customers who had originally deposited the vehicles for repair/ replacements. g) The payments governed by the claims duty evidenced by various collateral documents referred to above are settled only by the appellants and are not ultimately borne by the customer. 3.3 The Department has denied the credit alleging that the invoices are raised where the name of the owner of the vehicle is mentioned and not that of the assessee. In the particular nature of the transactions of General Insurance business, the invoice mentions the name of the owner of the vehicle. Rule 9 does not state that if the invoice or bill or challan is not issued in the name of input service receiver credit has to be denied even if the output service provider receives the input service and uses it in prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle owner. In this connection it is not in dispute that the appellant has availed the credit only proportionately to the extent of amount borne by them. The general insurance service provided by the appellant basically insures the vehicle against damages. It is obvious that such service can be provided to the customer i.e., owners of the vehicle only by way of reimbursement of the repair charges. We are unable to see any other way by which the vehicle insurance service can be delivered to the customer. In this scenario, we are of the view that the service tax paid on the bill of the ASS is to be considered as falling within the definition of the input service which is used for providing the output service of the vehicle insurance. 6.4 The appellant has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the Paul Merchants case (supra). We have gone through the said decision in which the Tribunal has made a distinction between the beneficiary of a service and the recipient of the service. The Tribunal observed that the service recipient is the one who is obliged to pay for the services to the service provider and whose need is satisfied by the provision of the service, in other way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
