2019 (6) TMI 688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r our consideration: "(B) Whether the applicant was right invoking proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 in applying extended period for demands?" 3] The respondent is engaged in providing Life Insurance Service. The impugned order of Tribunal dated 25th September 2017 holds that the respondent was providing taxable service (risk premium), Non Taxable Service (investment management services) and exempted service (Traditional Golden Year Plan). On merits, it holds that the respondent was not entitled to avail of input credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the extent the same have been utilised in providing Life Insurance service under the Traditional Golden Plan as it was in the nature of exempted service. However, it held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent took Cenvat credit in respect of exempted services came to light only on Audit being conducted by the appellant - Revenue. Besides, it is submitted that the respondent had not declared the value of the exempted service in their ST-3 Returns and this clearly establishes suppression of the facts on the part of the respondent so as to evade duty. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the Commissioner ought not to have been deleted by the impugned order. 7] We note that the impugned order records the fact that the respondent was under bonafide belief that the Life Insurance Service per se was not exempted service. It was this which resulted in the respondent proceeding to ta....