Cenvat credit for tripartite dealer services allowed where services qualify as input service and exclusions are absent

Tripartite agreements between the service recipient, dealers and insurer establishing dealers' role and services render the invoices admissible for cenvat credit so long as the services qualify as input service under CCR 2004 and are not on the exclusion list; consequence: the recipient is entitled to credit. Recorded statements of a few dealers lacking corroboration have insufficient evidentiary value, and absence of allegation regarding non-recording of transactions undermines denial. Coordinate decisions indicate that credit at recipient's end cannot be denied unless the dealer's assessment is revised, which has not occurred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of cenvat credit taken by the Appellant.
2. Validity of Recorded Statements as evidence.
3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues.

Summary:

1. Legality of cenvat credit taken by the Appellant:
The Appellant, a Business Process Outsourcing Company providing Third-Party Administrator (TPA) services, entered into Tripartite Agreements with insurance companies and automobile dealers. The dealers provided infrastructure and manpower support, for which they raised invoices including Service Tax. The Appellant took cenvat credit for the Service Tax paid. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that no actual services were rendered by the dealers and that the transactions were merely on paper, thus questioning the legality of the cenvat credit taken. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.

2. Validity of Recorded Statements as evidence:
The Appellant cross-examined the officials whose statements were relied upon by the Department. During the cross-examination, the officials confirmed that services were indeed provided, including the use of manpower, internet, and computer systems for generating insurance policies through the Appellant's portal. The Appellant argued that these cross-examinations disproved the initial statements and thus, the Recorded Statements had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal found that the Tripartite Agreements and the invoices issued by the dealers were authentic and accounted for, and there was no allegation that the services rendered did not fall within the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004.

3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues:
The Appellant cited several case laws, including M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., and M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., where it was held that if the Service Tax paid by the service provider is not questioned, the cenvat credit taken by the recipient cannot be denied. The Tribunal noted that in all these cases, the proceedings were initiated by the same investigating authority (DGCEI Chennai) and the issues were identical. The Tribunal concluded that the present appeal was squarely covered by these decisions, and thus, the Appellant was eligible to take the cenvat credit on the invoices raised by the car dealers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal, holding that the Appellant is eligible to take the cenvat credit on the invoices raised by various car dealers and distributors for the services provided by them.

---