Tribunal denies input credit for Service Tax on General Insurance Service for cash vans.

The Tribunal upheld the decision denying input credit of Service Tax paid on General Insurance Service for cash vans, ruling that the appellant failed to prove registration of the vehicles in its name as required for claiming credit. The appellant's argument based on RBI guidelines and capital goods classification was dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting vehicle registration during the disputed period. The Tribunal also rejected the relevance of late-submitted registration certificates, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish actual use of the vehicles. The appeal was dismissed on 08.01.2020.

---

---

Issues:
Availability of input credit of Service Tax paid on General Insurance Service on cash vans.

Analysis:
The only issue in this appeal pertains to the availability of input credit of Service Tax paid on General Insurance Service on cash vans. The appellant argued that the insurance on cash vans was essential for securing cash transportation, as per RBI guidelines, and that the vans were capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant contended that the exclusion clause under Rule 2(l) regarding General Insurance should not apply as they were providing output service. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the input credit was denied due to irregular availment of CENVAT Credit and that General Insurance fell under the exclusion clause. The Revenue highlighted the requirement for motor vehicles to be registered in the name of the service provider as per the definition of capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant failed to submit supporting documents, leading to the denial of input credit.

During the hearing, the appellant relied on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal and submitted photocopies of registration certificates for the cash vans in question. However, the Tribunal noted that the definition of capital goods requires registration in the name of the service provider, which the appellant failed to prove. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to support the registration of the vehicles in its name during the disputed period. The registration certificates submitted were dated after the disputed period, further weakening the appellant's case.

The Tribunal rejected the relevance of the photocopies of registration certificates filed for the first time during the appeal, as the vehicles' actual use was not established. The Tribunal emphasized that no registration certificate was provided to the Revenue authorities earlier, and the significance of the photocopies was not explained. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving registration in its name, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the case law cited by the appellant was not applicable to the current case under Service Tax, as it pertained to classification issues under the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the appellant did not demonstrate merit in their contentions regarding the availability of input credit. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for registration of motor vehicles in the name of the service provider for claiming input credit and found that the appellant failed to meet this requirement. The judgment was pronounced on 08.01.2020.

---