TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Policy, who collects the same from the members and submit a detailed report to the appellant such as numbers of member and amount collected. On receipt of such report, the appellant takes group medical insurance policy from the insurance company and pays the premium to that company. After receiving the Group medical policy, the appellant raises the service tax invoices to the Hriday Bizz Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur for reimbursement of the premium paid by them on behalf of their members to the insurance company. The appellant deposited the service tax so collected to the Government exchequer through their CENVAT account which they have taken on the basis of payment of insurance premium to the insurance company. 2. Department alleged that the said activity is wrongly considered as input service. Hence, wrongly availed CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs. 1,11,08,155/- on said input services for the period from 2014-15 to 2016-17. 2016-17. 16-17 was proposed to be denied and recovered from the appellant along with interest at the appropriate rate and proportionate penalties vide show cause notice no. 14/2017-18 dated January 023, 2019. The proposal was initially confirmed vide order in orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the insurance company is wrongly denied. Learned counsel has relied upon various decisions of this Tribunal including one of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-III vs. Creative Enterprises, 2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj) which has been re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case reported as 2009 (243) ELT (A) 120. 4.2. Finally it is submitted that there is no basis for alleging suppression of facts on part of the appellant that too with intent to evade payment of duty. The entire information was already with the department as the appellant was regularly filing ST-3 returns. The impugned show cause notice dated 05.01.2019 has proposed the demand for the period 2014-15 to September, 2016. The entire period is beyond the normal period of issuing show cause notice. It is submitted that for want of any evidence produced by the department proving alleged suppression by the appellant, the show cause notice is barred by limitation. Confirming demand proposed under such SCN is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. Above all, the case has culminated from the audit for this reason also the allegations of suppression of facts are liable to be set aside. Learned c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procuring the policy and they are raising the reimbursement charges of the amount of premium paid by them on behalf of their members. This entire activity does not involved provision of any sort of output service hence it is rightly held that the group insurance policy of member is not used for provision of output services. The services provided by the insurance company does not qualify as an input service. Also for the reasons that appellant is not registered with IRDA they cannot provide the insurance services. The insurance services are otherwise in the exclusion clause of the input service definition in rule 2(l) of CENVAT credit Rules. The policies in question for person use and consumption of the members of the appellants. The availmnet of CENVAT credit is rightly denied to the appellant. With these submissions the appeal filed by the department is prayed to be allowed and three of the appeals filed by the appellants are prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire record of four of the appeals, it is observed from para 4 of the show cause notice that as per department's opinion. Basis an audit, the SCN dated 03.01.2019 was issued to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise & Customs, Surat - III vs. Creative Enterprises - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) In the present case, the assessee was under the impression that the activity undertaken by it amounted to manufacture and accordingly paid excise duty and also availed Cenvat credit of the inputs utilized. The department contended that as the activity of the assessee did not amount to manufacture, the assessee is liable to reverse the CENVAT credit availed. The Gujarat High Court held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied when the assessee has paid the tax, as payment of tax amounts to reversal of credit. The court in paragraph 7 of the decision held as follows : "The Tribunal is justified in holding that if the activity of the respondent - assessee does not amount to manufacture there can be no question of levy of duty, and if duty is levied, Modvat credit cannot be denied by holding that there is no manufacture." This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue. The order of dismissal is reported at 2009 (243) E.L.T. A 121. (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III vs. Ajinkya Enterprises - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he is mandated to do and calls for any records as he is authorised to call for, any mistakes which may be pointed out by the audit would come to light and an SCN could have been issued under section 11A within the normal period of limitation. Therefore, even if no audit is conducted during the relevant period and some duty escapes assessment, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for that reason. The check against incorrect self assessment is the scrutiny of the return by the officer and audit is only the second check. Therefore, while the fact that audit checks only some selected documents and not every document as held in the impugned order is correct, this cannot be a ground to invoke extended period of limitation. Unlike audit, the officer receiving the ER-1 returns is required to scrutinise the returns and is empowered to call for any information. 9. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Ram Chits Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad 2023 (69) GSTL 397(Tri.-Hyd) has also held as follows: "17.2. Clearly, the show cause notice is issued alleging wilful and intentional suppression of facts by the appellan....