2026 (2) TMI 668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as M/s. ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd.) against Order-in-Original No. 148/2012-ST (Commr.) dated 21.12.2012 and Order-in-Original No. 149/2012-ST (Commr.) dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service tax, LTU, Bangalore respectively. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant was engaged in the business of providing insurance services and had discharged service tax after availing eligible cenvat credit, however, show-cause notices were issued demanding utilization of credit in excess of 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service in contravention of Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 issued to them. The Commissioner in the impugned orders after taking into considerat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....credit availed by the appellant and it was restricted to 20% of the tax payable, the demands were dropped. Therefore, nothing survives and the appeals are itself infructuous. 5. Heard both sides. It is relevant to examine Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is reproduced below: Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services 6(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules(1) and (2), the manufacturer or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following conditions, as applicable to him, namely:- (c) the provider of output service shall utilise credit to extent of an amount not ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relied on the CBEC Circular F. No.354/9/2011 TRU dated 12th July 2011 to deny the benefit of 100% credit. This issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as various Tribunals have categorically held that since the appellant is paying service tax at the rate of 1% on the gross amount of premium charged, the services rendered by the appellant cannot be considered as exempted services as defined under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 7. We find that this issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as this Tribunal vide Final Order No.21325 to 21327/2023 dated 4.12.2023 in appellant's own case in a similar set of facts, has observed as follows: "11. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short question involved in the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue we have examined the tax liability for the services rendered by the appellant-assessee. The appellant-assessee collects ULIP Insurance premium which is essentially an insurance policy having Investment as well as risk cover, The appellant assessee is discharging Service Tax on the portion of amount allocated to the risk cover under Life Insurance Service. A substantial portion of premium collected under ULIP is Invested in various financial Instruments, The Appellant-assessee is managing such Investment on the behalf of the Insured. For managing such Investment and also managing the policy the appellant assessee allocates some portion of the premium towards administrative expenses etc. Service Tax is paid on such administrative charges....