TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hdeva, Advocate and Ms. Neha Gulati, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against order-in-original dated 14.3.2012 of Commissioner, LTU, New Delhi. 2. The respondents are engaged in the business of life insurance and annuity products. They were registered with the Department for discharging service tax under various taxable categories. They were als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case was adjudicated. The Commissioner vide the impugned order held that the respondent were providing both taxable and exempted services. He held that the respondent is liable to pay either an amount equal to 6 % of the value of exempted service or reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the value of exempted services in terms of Section 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004. 3. Ld. AR elabora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... based insurance service was subject matter of dispute. There were decisions by the jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities holding that the said service is not an exempted service as it is not falling within the statutory scope of Finance Act, 1994. Ld. Counsel referred to one such decision passed by the Commissioner (Adj.), Central Excise, Mumbai on 18.01.2008 with reference to SBI Insurance Co.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial time, the status of annuity service itself was not clear. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The proceedings against the respondent is to recover an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the exempted service. The Original. Authority held that the respondent is liable to follow one of the two options in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004. The respondent followe....