2025 (3) TMI 64 - AT - Service Tax

Sree Saradhambal Automobiles wins appeal; not liable for service tax on insurance incentives under relevant Act sections.

M/s. Sree Saradhambal Automobiles (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Appellant, M/s. Sree Saradhambal Automobiles (P) Ltd., ruling that they were not liable to pay service tax on ... Levy of servie tax - insurance auxiliary services - incentives received from insurance companies - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- In respect of the same Appellant, the Tribunal for the earlier periods has set aside the demands and penalties vide SREE SARADAMBAL AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [2018 (3) TMI 195 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that appellants were not liable for service tax under Insurance Auxiliary Service due to their lack of qualifications as actuaries and the nature of their operations as explained during the proceedings. The impugned Order-in-Appeal cannot be sustained - appeal allowed. The appeal in the case of M/s. Sree Saradhambal Automobiles (P) Ltd. involved the issue of whether the Appellant was liable to pay service tax on incentives received from insurance companies. The core legal questions considered in the judgment were:1. Whether the services provided by the Appellant fell under the category of 'insurance auxiliary services' as defined in Section 65(55) and Section 65(105)(zl) of the Act.2. Whether the Appellant could be classified as an actuary, intermediary, or insurance intermediary.3. Whether the liability for service tax on the incentives received by the Appellant should be under the reverse charge mechanism.The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal framework, precedents, and evidence presented in the case. The Appellant argued that they did not fall under the category of actuary or intermediary/insurance intermediary and that the liability for service tax should be on the insurance companies under the reverse charge mechanism. The Appellant also cited previous Tribunal decisions where similar demands were set aside.The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the findings of the lower authorities. It noted that in earlier periods, similar demands and penalties were set aside for the same Appellant by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order where it was established that the activities of the Appellant did not qualify them as an actuary and that the conclusions of the lower authorities were beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice.Based on the precedent set in the previous Final Order and in compliance with judicial discipline, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned Order-in-Appeal upholding the demand for service tax could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant and ordered the impugned order to be set aside.In summary, the Tribunal held that the Appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the incentives received from insurance companies, as they did not fall under the category of actuary or intermediary/insurance intermediary. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.