Compulsory deposit insurance premium qualifies as input service for Cenvat credit when tied to banking operations.

Compulsory deposit insurance premium paid by banks to DICGC is treated as an input service for Cenvat credit because the payment is mandatory, directly connected with banking operations, and integral to the provision of output services; credit is therefore admissible. Where credit was taken before revised invoices were issued, no substantive violation was established on the facts, and no interest liability arose. The note emphasises that a mandatory statutory expense forming part of the banking service chain can satisfy the nexus requirement under the credit scheme, provided no disqualifying irregularity is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid on deposit insurance premium to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation qualifies as an input service for availing Cenvat credit by banks; (ii) Whether availment of credit before the issuance of revised invoices attracted any violation of the credit-taking conditions and consequential interest.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid on deposit insurance premium to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation qualifies as an input service for availing Cenvat credit by banks.

Analysis: The deposit insurance arrangement is a compulsory incident of banking business. Registration with the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation is not optional, payment of premium is mandatory, and failure to maintain such registration may jeopardise the bank's licence and ability to render banking and financial services. The service therefore has direct nexus with the provision of output services and falls within the main part of the definition of input service. The conclusion is reinforced by the Larger Bench view in South Indian Bank and by subsequent judicial approval of that view.

Conclusion: The service tax paid on deposit insurance premium is admissible as Cenvat credit and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether availment of credit before the issuance of revised invoices attracted any violation of the credit-taking conditions and consequential interest.

Analysis: The record showed that the premium had been paid and the invoices were later revised to reflect the relevant dates. On those facts, no substantive irregularity in taking credit was established, and there was no breach warranting interest. The timing discrepancy was treated as a factual issue without adverse consequence.

Conclusion: No violation of the credit-taking conditions or liability to interest was established and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained because the insurance premium paid to DICGC was part of the banking service chain and the credit availment was not shown to be irregular.

Ratio Decidendi: A compulsory statutory payment made by banks for deposit insurance, which is integral to their ability to provide banking services, constitutes an input service for Cenvat credit purposes where it has direct nexus with the output service and is not excluded by the credit scheme.

---