Tribunal Upholds Bank's Right to Cenvat Credit on DICGC Insurance, Aligns with Larger Bench Precedent on Input Services.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant bank, affirming its eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on the insurance service received from DICGC. This decision was based on a precedent set by a Larger Bench, which clarified that such insurance services qualify as "input services" for banks. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ensuring consistency in the interpretation of "input service" for Cenvat Credit purposes in banking services.

---

---

Issues:
Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on insurance service received by a bank from DICGC.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on the insurance service received by the appellant bank from DICGC. The appellant, a bank engaged in providing Banking and Other Financial Services, had availed Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid for Deposit Insurance Service provided by DICGC during the disputed period. The department disputed the availment of Cenvat Credit, arguing that such services lacked nexus with the actual performance of banking services by the appellant.

The Tribunal noted the highly debatable nature of the issue, with conflicting views by different benches. To resolve the dispute, a Larger Bench was constituted, which in a separate case involving South Indian Bank, held that the insurance service provided by DICGC to banks qualifies as an "input service." The Larger Bench's decision clarified that banks can avail Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for such services received from DICGC for rendering output services.

Based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal concluded that the issue regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit on Deposit Insurance Service provided by DICGC was no longer res integara. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned order, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In summary, the judgment resolved the issue by affirming the eligibility of the appellant bank to avail Cenvat Credit on the insurance service received from DICGC, in line with the decision of the Larger Bench. The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of "input service" in the context of banking services, ensuring consistency in the treatment of such services for Cenvat Credit purposes.

---