TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from service tax paid on premium collected for deposit insurance services was allowable on the basis that the tax component had not been separately recovered, and whether the taxable value had to be computed on a cum-tax basis.
Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of the service rendered in relation to general insurance business under the Finance Act, 1994. The record showed that the respondent had been charging a premium fixed under the governing statutory framework, and there was no reliable evidence that any amount over and above the prescribed premium had been collected from the recipient banks. In the circumstances, the amount received was treated as inclusive of service tax, and the value for levy had to be worked out on a cum-tax basis. The contention that refund could not be granted because the tax had been separately borne was rejected for want of factual support.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not sustainable, and the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a service-tax valuation dispute, where the assessee fails to prove that tax was separately recovered and the surrounding circumstances show that the consideration was fixed within a statutory premium framework, the gross receipt may be treated as inclusive of tax for cum-tax computation.
TaxTMI 
