https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246200 The appeals filed by the appellants, including M/s TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., M/s ICICI Prudential, and M/s Birla Sun Life, were allowed. They were affirmed the entitlement to utilize CENVAT Credit for the payment of Service Tax on Insurance Auxiliary Service. The Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the legal and factual positions established during the proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that the cap of 20% under Rule 6(3)(c) did not apply to Insurance Auxiliary Service, allowing the entire Service Tax Credit to be utilized for the discharge of Service Tax on the said service. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246200 The appeals filed by the appellants, including M/s TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., M/s ICICI Prudential, and M/s Birla Sun Life, were allowed. They were affirmed the entitlement to utilize CENVAT Credit for the payment of Service Tax on Insurance Auxiliary Service. The Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the legal and factual positions established during the proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that the cap of 20% under Rule 6(3)(c) did not apply to Insurance Auxiliary Service, allowing the entire Service Tax Credit to be utilized for the discharge of Service Tax on the said service. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246200