TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority vide respective Orders-in Originals which were upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide its respective Orders-in-Appeals as indicated below. The details of Orders-in-Original, Orders-in-Appeal, period of dispute and the issues involved in each of these Appeals are tabulated below for ease of convenience : Appeal No. OIO No. &date OIA No. & date Period Issue involved ST/40612/2016 LTUC36/2014(DC)dt.31.03.2014 402/2015dt. 30.12.2015 2012-2013 (i) whether denial of Exemption Notfn. 58/2010 dt.21.12.2010 and 25/2012-ST dt. 20.6.2012 for reinsurers related to general insurance business in weather-based crop insurance or modified agricultural scheme approved by Govt of Indiais correct? (ii) whether CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6demanded on total cenvat credit is correct ? (iii) whether denial of Cenvat credit on various inputservices viz., Air Travel Agent, Rail Travel Agent, Club Member ship and Group Insurance for Employees is justified ? (iv) whether cenvat credit of Rs.2,10,39,170/-availed in respect of ST paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism)is eligible ? (iv) whether Order of adjustment of Rs.5,23,07,362/-is in orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue; we have carefully perused the documents and submissions made both in writing as well as verbal during the course of arguments and we have also gone through the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue (involved in Appeal Nos. ST/40612/2016, ST/40614/2016, ST/40615/2016) regarding denial of Exemption Notification No. 58/2010 dt. 21.12.2010 and No.25/2012ST dt. 20.6.2012 for reinsurers related to General Insurance business in Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme or Modified National Agricultural Scheme approved by Govt. of India stands squarely covered by decision of this Bench in Appellant-Assessee's own case for the subsequent period vide Final Order No.40274/2026 dated 19.02.2026 [in Service Tax Appeal No.42768 of 2018) as reported in 2026 (2) TMI 108-CESTAT Chennai. Following the ratio of this Bench decision (supra), we set aside that part of the impugned orders in so far as this issue is concerned and allow the Appeal Nos. ST/40612/2016, ST/40614/2016, ST/40615/2016 with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. 4. The next issue is with regard to reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 demanded on total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explain with proper evidence. In the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant has pleaded that 'it has been explained in grounds of appeal by the appellants that since entire tax paid under Reverse charge mechanism would be eligible to credit, there was no excess availment. However, this point could have been verified by the original authority had the Commissioner (Appeals) given appropriate decision to the effect. .......'. It was pleaded before us that they requested for verification of the Appellant's documents which were available, but for want of opportunity the same could not be furnished. 6.1 In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside this part of the order also and remand this issue for de novo adjudication to enable the Appellant-Assessee to furnish such documents as claimed to be in existence at that point of time, which were not produced for want of opportunity. On being satisfied, after affording reasonable opportunities to the Appellant-Assessee, the Original Authority shall pass a speaking order. Appeal No. ST/40612/2016 is remanded to Original Authority on this issue with our directions as above. 7. Next issue is regarding adjustment of an amount of Rs.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability that was paid, rather the cenvat credit sought to be availed on the tax paid was denied. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue in the case of ICMC Corporation Ltd. [2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad.)] wherein after considering the rival contentions, it has been held as under : "13. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Revenue. Admittedly, the assessee originally availed the Cenvat credit on Service Tax for discharging its liability. However, for sound reasons, it reversed the credit. Strictly speaking, in this process, there is only an account entry reversal and factually there is no outflow of funds from the assessee to result in filing application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 claiming refund of duty. The contention of the Revenue that even in reversal of the entry there is bound to be an unjust enrichment has no substance or based on any legal principle, since, what is availed off by the assessee is only a credit on the duty paid on the services rendered. Further, the assessee is entitled to take note of as per Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. as there is no dispute of the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly indicates the total credit amount attributable to wholly exempted goods which was not taken. Paragraph 3 of the Order-in-Original dt.30.08.2013 only refers to the provisional returns for the half year 30.09.2011 and 31.03.2012 were filed on 24.10.2011 and 10.04.2012 respectively wherefrom the authority has observed that input credit of Rs.322,93,24,069/- having been availed and utilised against the tax liability, final ST-3 returns for the year 2011-12 filed by the Appellant indicated that they have made excess payments of Rs.9,67,42,696/-. From the above, what has been contended in the grounds of appeal is contrary to para-3 which has been relied upon; The Adjudicating Authority has only referred to the amounts in the Appellant's own provisional and final returns. In any case, if the Adjudicating Authority's observation in the paragraph is incorrect, then it could only be a rectifiable mistake and hence, we are of the view that this issue can also be sent back for cross verification of the amounts mentioned in the provisional returns as well as final returns. This issue in Appeal No.ST/40614/2016 is remitted back to the file of Original Authority to cross verify the amounts as....