2013 (9) TMI 181 - AT - Service Tax

Insurance company ordered to pre-deposit Rs.50,00,000 within six weeks for denied CENVAT credit.

M/s CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST LTU, CHENNAI

The Tribunal ordered the appellant, an insurance company, to pre-deposit Rs.50,00,000 within six weeks for denied CENVAT credit due to alleged fraudulent ... CENVAT credit on invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations (ASS) - Department contended that appellant's name was stamped/handwritten by themselves on these invoices so as to claim undue CENVAT credit – Held that:- The insurance company was not shown to have stamped or handwritten their own name in the invoices issued by ASS to the vehicle owners - an act which appears to be fraudulent has been noticed in the instant case - after pursuing the sample copies of invoices available on record we have found the distinct features of the invoices - appellant fails to furnish a list of the last category of invoices showing the corresponding CENVAT credit amounts. - appellant relied on the decision of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE LTU,(2013 (2) TMI 132 - CESTAT CHENNAI). Prima facie caee is against the assessee - stay granted partly. Issues:- Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding denied CENVAT credit.- Allegations of fraudulent practices in claiming CENVAT credit through tampered invoices.- Comparison with previous cases where waiver and stay were granted to the same insurance company.Analysis:- The appellant, an insurance company, sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the denied CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.5,96,92,798 for the period from 1.7.2007 to 31.3.2010. The dispute arose from discrepancies in the invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations (ASS) where the appellant's name was allegedly stamped or handwritten to claim undue credit. The department contended that such tampered invoices cannot be used for CENVAT credit.- The learned Additional Commissioner emphasized that no service recipient should tamper with statutory invoices and that such tampered invoices are not valid for claiming CENVAT credit. Additionally, it was suggested that the possibility of vehicle owners, who may also be manufacturers or service providers, availing CENVAT credit cannot be ruled out. The argument raised by the department had some merit, indicating potential misuse of credit by various parties involved.- The appellant's counsel referenced previous cases where the Bench had granted waiver and stay to the same insurance company. However, upon review of the cited cases, it was noted that the fraudulent practice of stamping or handwriting the insurance company's name on invoices was not present in those instances. The current case presented a unique situation of apparent fraudulent activity, distinguishing it from the previous cases where relief was granted.- In the absence of a detailed breakdown of the demand, the Tribunal determined that the appellant must pre-deposit Rs.50,00,000 within six weeks, prohibiting the utilization of CENVAT credit for this deposit. Compliance was to be reported to the designated authorities by specific dates. Upon satisfactory compliance, waiver and stay were granted for the remaining amount of CENVAT credit, along with associated interest and penalties, highlighting the importance of adherence to procedural and statutory requirements in claiming credits.