TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant for the period from April 2011 to September 2011, it was noticed that they have availed ineligible CENVAT credit as mentioned above. 2.2 Consequently, a SCN No LTUC/240/2012 -ADC dated 15.06.2012 was issued, which was adjudicated by the ADC vide Order-in-Original No. LTUC/072/2013-ADC dated 26.03.2013 confirming an amount of Rs.17,34,906/- being the CENVAT credit of service tax wrongly availed by the Appellant on the basis of invoices issued by authorised service stations, under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Sec.73 (11) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest on the above amount under Ruie 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Sec.75 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- was imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CCR, 2004. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals I), Chennai, who rejected the Appeal vide Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2015 dated 01.06.2015 2.4 Once again being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this Appeal before this Tribunal which was numbered as ST/41832/2015. 3. The Ld. Advocate Ms. R. Charulatha, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Departmental Representative Ms. Rajini Menon, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by the Appellant. The service of repair of vehicle belonging to the customer is thus an input service, using which the Appellant fulfils its obligation of providing insurance service to their clients. Thus, the repair service is a service used to provide insurance service and so an eligible input service as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. viii. It is further submitted that since the Impugned Order reversing the Credit is without merits, interest is not leviable in the instant case and penalty under Section 15(1) of the CCR, 2004 is not imposable. ix. In light of the above submissions, it was prayed that the Appeal be allowed in full, and the Impugned Order be set aside with consequential relief. 5.1 Per contra, the Authorised Departmental Representative Ms. Rajini Menon supported the findings of the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2015 dated 01.06.2015. 5.2 It was further contended that that Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules require valid invoices/bills in prescribed form and containing particulars of the recipient; since the invoices are in the name of private individuals and do not bear the insurer's name, the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for a wide array of services supporting a taxpayer's operations. 9.4 The Appellant submitted that they are eligible to avail the credit of the service tax paid on the ASS services received by them and the subsequent amendment to the definition of input services is curative and retrospective in nature. 9.5 It has been submitted that the Impugned Order has confirmed the reversal of Credit on the ground that w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CCR. 2004 was amended to exclude the services provided by ASS as per Rule 2(l)(B) of the CCR, 2004. 9.6 That, the legislative intent can be deciphered from the subsequent amendment made vide Notification No. 18/2012- Central Excise (N.T) dated 17.03.2012 which substituted the Rule 2(l)(B) with Rule 2(l)(BA) to exclude motor vehicle insurance companies providing insurance services from the ambit of the exclusion brought in w.e.f. 01.04.2011. It is thus submitted that all along, the legislative intent and the consistent policy of the Government has been to allow the ASS and insurance companies are eligible to avail Credit on the service tax paid by them. The exclusion clause brought in w.e.f. 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hange is substantive, not clarificatory. 9.14 In view of the above finding, I hold that the substitution of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by Notification No. 3/2011-CE(NT) dated 1 March 2011, effective from 1 April 2011, is prospective in operation. Therefore, for the period after 1 April 2011, the amended definition, along with its exclusion clauses, will govern the availment of credit. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the Respondent. 10.1 The next issue is whether CENVAT credit is available when the invoices/bills are in the name of insured individuals, and also when the vehicles are in the name of the Customers (Individual insurers) for the period 01.04.2011 to 30.9.2011. 10.2 The Appellants have submitted that the issue is settled in favour of the Appellant's own case for the previous periods: It is submitted that the very same issue of eligibility of Credit for the services received from ASS is settled in favour of the Appellant for the previous period in their own case of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Chennai, 2018 (9) TMI 1584 CESTAT Chennai. It is furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2015 dated 01.06.2015. The taxpayer's contention that the credit taken pertained to the services availed prior to 31.03.2011 but the credit availment took place from April 2011 to September 2011 (para 12 of the Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2013) was not legally countered by the Respondent. 10.7 I have perused some of the claims which are part of this paper book and find that the accident in those claims took place in March 2011, surveyors report was before 31.3.2011, job was assigned to the ASS by the Appellant and the Tax invoice was raised before 31.3.2011. The Appellant contends that the services were rendered to the Appellant by the ASS before 01.04.2011. The payment was made by the Appellant to the ASS after 01.4.2011. Payment vouchers were placed before me. The appellant submitted that the CENVAT credit was availed between the period 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011 (disputed period). The department, on the other hand has not shown any evidence that the service was delivered after 01.04.2011 or the Invoices were dated after 01.04.2011. Therefore, eligibility to take credit on these input services could not be questioned. 10.8 In view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-clauses (d). (o). (zo) and (zzzzj) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle except when used for the provision of taxable services for which the credit on motor vehicle is available as Capital goods; or 11.2. In the instant case, the period of wrong availment of credit is from April 2011 to September 2011. It could be seen from the above paragraphs, that there is a change in the Input definition w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and ASS have been specifically excluded from the definition of input services w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Accordingly there is an exclusion clause, which specifically states that input services in respect of general insurance business (sub-clause(d) of Sec 65), renting of cab Service (Sub-clause(o) of Sec 65), service or repair of automobiles services (ASS services) (sub clause(zo) of Sec 65), and supply of tangible goods service (sub-clause (zzzzj) of Sec 65) as eligible inputs as far as they relate to the cases where the motor vehicles themselves are used for the provision of taxable services for which the Credit on motor vehicle is available as capital goods, Thus the services of ASS Ire specifically excluded from t....