TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l filed by Revenue against Order-in-Original NO. 02/STC/SJS/08-09 dated 23.5.2008 passed by the various Commissioners as adjudicating authorities. The appellants are M/s TATA AIG Life Insurance co. Ltd., M/s ICICI Prudential & M/s Birla Sun Life. As the issues involved in all these appeals are common, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. The periods involved range from Sept. 2004 to March, 2008. 2. The appellants are provided of General and Life Insurance service. They also appoint Insurance Agents for canvassing business and such services fall under the taxable service category of 'Insurance Auxiliary Service'. Service Tax liability on the Insurance Auxiliary Service' is on the service recipient on reverse ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Credit Rules, 2004 'output service' has been defined under Rule 2(p) as follows:- "output service" means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, and the expression 'provider' and 'provided' shall be construed accordingly." As per the explanation- "for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that if a person liable for paying Service Tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay Service Tax shall be deemed to be the "output service". 3.1 The above explanation was omitted from 19.4.2006 by CENVAT C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 3.4 The learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. - 2007 (7) STR 26 (Tri-Del , Nahar Exports Ltd. -2008 (9) STR 252 (Tri-Del) and decision of the hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. - 2012 (25) STR 129 (P&H), Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Auro Spinning Mills - 2012 (279) ELT 349 (HP) and of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd.- 2013 (29) STR 358 (Del). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kansara Modler Ltd. - 2013 (32) STR 209 (Tri-del). In all these decisions, it has been held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h regard to the question whether Service Tax on receipt of service can be paid by utilizing input service credit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Alstom Projects India Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 23, where in the case of Goods Transport Agency Service, it was held that the same remains an input service even after deletion of explanation to Rule 2 (p) and, therefore, utilization of credit for payment of Service Tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service is not permissible. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellants were not entitled to use input service credit for payment of Service Tax on the output service of Insurance Auxiliary Service. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vider of taxable service" include a person liable for paying Service Tax." 5.2 Thus, the only change in the legal provision is the omission of Explanation under Rule 2(p). An Explanation only clarified the position. By omission of the explanation, the meaning does not undergo any change. Therefore, both prior to 19.4.2006 as also w.e.f. 19.4.2006, the meaning of the expression 'output service', 'provider of taxable service' and 'person liable for paying service tax' remain the same. Since in the case of Insurance Auxiliary Service, the liability to pay Service Tax is on the service recipient in terms of Rule 2 (1)(d)(iii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the appellants are the providers of the output service as defined in law. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived in India) Rules. We find that Rule 5 refers to availing of Cenvat Credit and not the utilization of credit. We are therefore of the view that the finding of the Commissioner not treating the appellant as output service provider, is not correct and accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 5.3 In view of the above decisions of the various High Courts, the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue become irrelevant. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants in present appeals were entitled to utilize CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on various input services for discharge the Service Tax liability on the output service of "Insurance Auxiliary Service". 5.4 We also note that there is no one to ....