ULIP surrender charges are outside service tax when linked to an actionable claim, though interest and some demand were upheld.

Surrender/discontinuance charges collected on premature surrender of ULIP policies were held not to be consideration for a taxable service, because the amount arose from the policyholder's contractual right to receive surrender value and related to an actionable claim rather than a service. Interest was held payable on the short-debited CENVAT-linked amount until actual debit, although penalty was not imposed. The demand relating to other income was sustained with interest, but the related penalty was set aside. Rule 6 relief was denied to the Revenue, as ULIP management remained a taxable service and partial non-taxation did not convert the value into exempt service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether surrender/discontinuance charges recovered on premature surrender of ULIP policies were liable to service tax as consideration for taxable services. (ii) Whether interest was payable on the amount of Rs. 91,92,096/- allegedly short paid for June 2012. (iii) Whether the demand of Rs. 8,17,779/- towards other income was sustainable. (iv) Whether Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was invocable on the Revenue's appeal.

Issue (i): Whether surrender/discontinuance charges recovered on premature surrender of ULIP policies were liable to service tax as consideration for taxable services.

Analysis: The amount retained on surrender represented the difference between fund value and surrender value and arose from the policyholder's contractual right to receive money on surrender. The governing definition of service excluded transactions in money or actionable claim. A life insurance policy and the right to receive insurance money were treated as actionable claims under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The charge was therefore not consideration for a service, and the IRDA regulations on discontinuance only prescribed the manner of computing surrender value.

Conclusion: The demand on surrender/discontinuance charges was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the amount of Rs. 91,92,096/- allegedly short paid for June 2012.

Analysis: The ST-3 returns and records showed that the liability was discharged, but the CENVAT utilisation column was not correctly reflected until a later correction. Since the amount was not debited in the CENVAT register for the relevant period, interest became payable till the date of actual debit under the statutory provision governing interest on delayed payment.

Conclusion: Interest was payable on Rs. 91,92,096/-, though penalty was not warranted, and this issue was decided partly against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand of Rs. 8,17,779/- towards other income was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee failed to show that the amount had been disclosed in the service tax returns or that the demand lacked basis on the record before the Tribunal. The confirmation of demand was therefore upheld, but the penalty was set aside.

Conclusion: The demand of Rs. 8,17,779/- with interest was upheld, while penalty was set aside, and this issue was decided against the assessee on tax liability.

Issue (iv): Whether Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was invocable on the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that management of ULIP remained a taxable service and that mere exclusion of part of the value from tax did not make that part an exempt service. The Revenue had not successfully displaced the findings on merits, and the case for treating the disputed amounts as exempt services was rejected.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and Rule 6 relief was not granted to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the core question of taxability of surrender/discontinuance charges, but remained liable for interest on the CENVAT-related short debit and for the confirmed demand of Rs. 8,17,779/-. The Revenue failed in its challenge under Rule 6, resulting in a mixed outcome with the assessee obtaining substantial but not complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge arising from surrender of a life insurance policy, being linked to an actionable claim and not to the rendition of a service, lies outside the charging scope of service tax.

---