Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (11) TMI 1517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants are engaged in providing taxable service under the category "General Insurance Business and Business Auxiliary Service". During the relevant period i.e. from January 2008 to March 2012, the appellant had chalked out a marketing plan whereunder the person joining as Sales Officer was required to deposit Rs. 3,000/- (January 2008 to June 2010) and Rs. 4,000/- (July 2010 to March 2010) as Field Care Plan Incentive Deposit (FCP deposit). The breakup of the said deposits are as follows: For Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 500/- as registration fee, Rs. 500/- for membership fee and Rs. 2,000/- as field care plan incentive deposit. For Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 500/- as registration fee, Rs. 1,500/- for membership fee and Rs. 2,000/- as field care plan inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they were getting commissions in the said transaction. Selling of insurance policy and business card is a business of that individual and for that purpose, the appellant was providing support in the form of providing insurance policies and business cards. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 1,58,06,132/- for the period January 2008 to March 2013, with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the said demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services, viz. general insurance business and business auxiliary service. Under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....licies, a person should be registered as an insurance agent or actuary or intermediary or insurance intermediary. The sales officers appointed for selling the life care cards were not having any such type of qualification. Under the circumstances, there was no question for sales officers to do their own business of selling insurance policies and business cards. The sales officers were appointed by the appellant as members/agents of their company for selling their life care cards after they were registered with the appellant-company by submitting a proper application. The application form would reveal that the sales officers were nothing but members of their business of Life Line Life Care Co. in selling life care cards devised by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal memoranda. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The question raised in the present appeal for determination is whether the amount collected as Field Care Plan Incentive Deposit (FCP deposit) is subjected to service tax under the category of 'business promotion service'. The Revenue's contention is that while providing appointment as Sales Officer, the appellant had collected deposits from the respective Marketing Officers who, in turn, after necessary training, enrolled further 25 persons as Sales Officers eligible to sell the policies promoted by the appellant of various insurance companies of which the appellant is the authorized agent under the Insurance Act, 1938. The reasoning given by the learned Commissioner i....