2023 (11) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Denial of CENVAT Credit at the receiver's end, on the ground of incorrect description of services in the invoices raised by the service provider, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is engaged in the business of providing general insurance services. It has been receiving infrastructure facilities and support services from various motor car dealers as well as availing input credits against payment of tax paid towards availment of such services alongwith other services like work stations, advertisement etc. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the DGCI that the dealers of cars were collecting insurance premium from the car customers and remitting the insurance amount to the insurance compan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt had entered into several agreements with motor car dealers for providing facilities including sharing of desktops, telephones, fax, photocopying machines, storage room for storage of advertisement materials, safe custody of policies etc. which were specifically incorporated in the agreement and the motor vehicle dealers raised invoices with service charges and service tax for the services provided by them against which Appellant had rightly availed the credits since the output service in completing insurance business was becoming fruitful through those inputs but instead of raising invoices with description as business support service defined under Section 65(104)C of the Finance Act, 1994, they had put incorrect description of services ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. Anand Kumar argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner and tried to justify that due to incorrect description in the invoices, that failed to meet the requirement of Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, credit was justifiably denied to the Appellant. He further submitted that the amount transferred to the vehicle dealers were dependent on the number of vehicles sold and insured and not based on the provision for supply of infrastructure or business support services, for which interference in the order passed by the Commissioner is uncalled for. 5. We took note of the submissions and examined the appeal case records as well as the relied up....