ULIP life insurance investment components not exempt from CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3)(i)

CESTAT Bangalore held that life insurance services with investment components under ULIP plans do not constitute exempted services for CENVAT credit purposes. Following precedents from CESTAT Mumbai, the tribunal ruled that premium portions earmarked for savings/investment are not exempted services. The demand for 6% of premium value attributable to non-risk coverage under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was confirmed. The appellant's appeal was allowed and impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the interpretation of the definition of exempted services under Rule 2(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the applicability of Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Interpretation of Exempted Services:
The appellants, engaged in providing taxable services under Life Insurance and Management of Investment under ULIP, were alleged to have availed CENVAT credit on both taxable and exempted services without maintaining separate records. The issue revolved around whether the services provided fell under the definition of taxable or exempted services. The appellant argued that life insurance services were taxable and not wholly exempt, thus not falling under the category of exempted services. They cited various judgments in support of their position.

Applicability of Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules:
The appellant contended that they did not provide any exempted service and that the option of reversing credit in proportion to exempted services could not be thrust upon them. They argued that the proportionate credit should be reversed, citing precedents where the option was allowed retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2008.

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 15(3):
The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, arguing that there was no suppression of facts with mala fide intention. They maintained that the penalty was unwarranted and unsustainable given the issue's nature relating to the interpretation of exempted services.

Judgment:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the portion of the premium earmarked for savings/investment in life insurance services did not constitute an exempted service. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that no separate identifiable service could be attributed to the investment portion of the premium, and thus, the demand of 6% of the value of the premium attributable to non-risk coverage was confirmed under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief as per law.

---