Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Credit cannot be denied due to incorrect description of Service on invoices when Service Tax has been correctly paid

Bimal jain
Insurance Firm Wins CENVAT Credit Case: Incorrect Invoice Descriptions Don't Invalidate Transactions When Service Tax is Paid. The CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of an insurance company, stating that credit cannot be denied due to incorrect service descriptions on invoices if the correct Service Tax has been paid. The company, involved in general insurance, claimed CENVAT Credit for services received from motor car dealers. The Revenue Department alleged that these services were not provided, leading to demands for credit denial. The tribunal held that incorrect invoice descriptions do not invalidate transactions when the Service Tax is correctly paid, thus setting aside the previous orders against the company and allowing the appeals. (AI Summary)

The CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-VI, MUMBAI AND M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CX, MUMBAI EAST - 2023 (11) TMI 472 - CESTAT MUMBAI  allowed the appeal andheld that Credit cannot be denied due to incorrect description of Service on invoiceswhen therecipient who had paid the required Service Tax through the service receiver to avail the input services.

Facts:

M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) engaged in the business of providing general insurance services. The Appellant availed CENVAT Credit (“the Credit”)  against payment of tax paid towards the support services and infrastructure facilities received from the various motor car dealers (the Dealers”).

After the investigation conducted by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) it was alleged that such services were not provided by the Dealers to the Appellant. The Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated October 15, 2015 was under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 for denying the Credit against the service availed for period of April 2010 to March 2015. The demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated November 28, 2016 (“the Impugned Order”).

Also, for the subsequent period of April 2015 and July 2017 the statement of demand dated January 18, 2018 under Section 73(1A) was issued for recovery of inadmissible credit. Thereafter, the said demand was confirmed vide Order-in Original dated January 30, 2021 (“the Impugned Order”) along with interest and penalty.

Aggrieved by the OIO passed, the Appellant appeal before this Appellate Tribunal contending that raising invoices with incorrect descriptions by the service provider i.e. the Dealer would not make the transaction invalid, therefore, Credit should not be denied to the recipient of service i.e. the Appellant.

Issue:

Whether the Credit can be denied due to incorrect description of Service on invoices when Service Tax has been correctly paid?

Held:

The CESTAT, Mumbai in M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-VI, MUMBAI AND M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CX, MUMBAI EAST - 2023 (11) TMI 472 - CESTAT MUMBAI  held as under:

  • Opined that, the Credit cannot be denied to the recipient who had paid the required Service Tax through the service receiver in order to avail the input services.
  • Held that, the appeals are allowed and the Impugned Order are set-aside.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles