TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT upholds recovery of inadmissible credit for exempted services in insurance company case</h1> <h3>M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Pune-I</h3> M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Pune-I - TMI Issues:1. Reversal of CENVAT credit for exempted services.2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services.3. Excess reversal of CENVAT credit.4. Penalty under Section 78.5. Invokability of extended period.Issue 1: Reversal of CENVAT credit for exempted servicesThe appellants, engaged in general insurance services, appointed agents who procured insurance business. The CERA Audit team objected to the credit taken by the appellants, leading to a reversal of credit along with interest. The Department issued show-cause notices for excess credit reversed for Jammu & Kashmir operations and other exempted services. The CESTAT directed reconsideration, stating that CENVAT credit on services rendered towards exempted services like Crop Insurance should be denied, but credit on other services with discharged Service Tax liability should be availed in full. The Order-in-Original confirmed the recovery of inadmissible credit for exempted services, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 2: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on input servicesThe appellants argued that as they provided partially taxable and exempted output services, Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should not apply as the input services were not wholly used for exempted services. They contended that they had already reversed credit for exempted services using Rule 6(3A) and claimed the demand of Service Tax was unjustified. The appellants also highlighted that the services provided by agents were not exclusively for exempted services but for both exempted and taxable services.Issue 3: Excess reversal of CENVAT creditThe appellants reversed a significant amount of CENVAT credit, including for Jammu & Kashmir operations and exempted services. They argued that they had reversed more than required and submitted working details to the authorities. However, the authorities did not verify the excess reversal as directed by the CESTAT. The case was remanded for proper examination of the excess reversal and eligibility for credit on input services.Issue 4: Penalty under Section 78The original Adjudicating Authority dropped the penalty under Section 78 but did not address the invokability of the extended period for suppressing facts. The case was directed back to examine the invokability of the extended period based on intentional suppression of facts.Issue 5: Invokability of extended periodThe matter was remanded to the original Authority to properly examine the eligibility of appellants for credit on input services, the correctness of excess reversal, and the invokability of the extended period. The appellants were directed to submit supporting documents within 30 days for a suitable order to be passed within three months.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by the appellants and the findings of the authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
