https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435890 Re-insurance services availed by an insurer were held not to fall within the Rule 2(l) exclusion for insurance services relating to a motor vehicle. The phrase "insofar as they relate to a motor vehicle" was construed narrowly, because re-insurance covers the insurer's business risk and not the vehicle itself or the policyholder's risk. The 01.04.2012 amendment did not change that position. Accordingly, re-insurance remained within the scope of "input service" for the relevant period, and CENVAT credit on such services was admissible. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435890 Re-insurance services availed by an insurer were held not to fall within the Rule 2(l) exclusion for insurance services relating to a motor vehicle. The phrase "insofar as they relate to a motor vehicle" was construed narrowly, because re-insurance covers the insurer's business risk and not the vehicle itself or the policyholder's risk. The 01.04.2012 amendment did not change that position. Accordingly, re-insurance remained within the scope of "input service" for the relevant period, and CENVAT credit on such services was admissible. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435890