Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 34 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - marine insurance - credit on premium paid for insurance for software engineers is denied as it is not a statutory requirement - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- This is a case where Revenue took a stand that the definition of ‘input service’ with effect from 01.04.2011 excluded health insurance, life insurance etc. when used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee as pleaded in this case, hence tax paid for such insurance premiums were not eligible for credit as ‘input service’. Being a mixed question of fact and law, it was felt by the Commissioner (Appeals) with an intent to do justice between the parties that a verification of facts may be required before deciding the legal point, instead of summarily accepting or rejecting them. Hence the remand of the matter by the Commissioner (Appeals) for examining the facts and deciding the same based on the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be faulted. The Appellant is agreed upon that the general insurance business which stood specified in Rule 2(1)(BA) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is applicable not for capital goods only. The definition of ‘input service’ as per Rule 2(l) ibid, covers not only the services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product but also includes activities related to business - The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was introduced by superseding the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, with the object to extend credit of service tax and excise duty across goods and services. Hence the change in the definition of ‘input service’ with effect from 01.04.2011 to excluded health insurance, life insurance etc. when used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee, cannot be read to restrict tax paid on insurance for capital goods only, without the Rules specifically saying so. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The dispute involves interpretation of the statutory provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 involving the definition of ‘input service’ and does not involve mis-declaration, with intention to evade payment of duty. This is also clear from the fact that the matter is being remanded by the Commissioner ((Appeals) for verification of facts in consonance with the law. Hence the extended period could not have been evoked nor penalty could have been imposed. While allowing the remand, the invocation of the extended period and the imposition of penalty in the impugned order is set aside - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
|