TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the amount collected did include the taxes; on the contrary, it was pointed out that, prior to the decision of the Tribunal in 2015 upholding the leviability of tax on activity undertaken by the respondent from 2011 onwards, the assessee had not been functioning under the premise that tax was not leviable and, hence, the claim that such is included in the premium is not tenable. The history of the dispute itself offers reliable guide to the view to be taken. The respondent had been providing the impugned service since 1st January 1962 by mandate of Parliament after failure of banks left small depositors stranded and though service tax was introduced as far back as 1994 on insurance service , the nature of its activity left it undist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Nitin M Tagade, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri Omprakash Bihari, Chartered Accountant for the respondent ORDER This appeal of Commissioner of CGST Central Excise, Mumbai Central arises from the setting aside of the rejection of claim for refund of ₹ 158,11,16,024, paid under protest following audit of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICCGC) and objection raised thereon on value of taxable services rendered between October 2011 and March 2013 by the competent authority, in order [order-in-appeal no. SM/36/Appeals-II/MC/2021 dated 26th February 2021] of Commissioner of GST Central Excise ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,46,81,068 by challans dated 12th January 2015 that was supplemented by remitting ₹ 30,20,24,260 by challan dated 30th June 2015 accounting for ₹ 118,64,34,956 towards differential tax and ₹ 39,46,81,068 towards interest. Having discharged liability thereafter by availing privilege of cum tax computation of assessable value, the audit exercise supra led to the objection on the assessable value adopted by the assessee and the discharge of differential tax liability along with interest thereon in two tranches. 4. The order of the original authority, set aside in the order now impugned by Commissioner of CGST Central Excise, Mumbai Central before us, had held that the claim was premature owing to the said audit objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority on the computation of assessable value and the protests large by the respondent herein. The first appellate authority took note of the decision of the Tribunal in Sidwal Refrigeration Industries P Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2002 (145) ELT 682 (Tri-Del)] that communication of audit objection does not constitute show cause notice envisaged in taxation statutes. 6. The grounds of appeal, and elaborated upon by Learned Authorized Representative, contend that no factual evidence has been cited by the appellant in proceedings before the lower authorities that tax has been included in the gross amount collected as premium, that the entire value is liable to tax under section 66 of Finance Act, 1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mprehend the finding of the original authority that the claim for refund was premature. It was preferred after payment of the claimed amount and it was certainly later than the final audit objection came to approved by the appropriate internal authority. Not unnaturally, the reviewing authority has not placed much store on that line. The thrust of the grounds is that the respondent has not evinced any factual material to contend that the amount collected did include the taxes; on the contrary, it was pointed out that, prior to the decision of the Tribunal in 2015 upholding the leviability of tax on activity undertaken by the respondent from 2011 onwards, the assessee had not been functioning under the premise that tax was not leviable and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dispute itself offers reliable guide to the view to be taken. The respondent had been providing the impugned service since 1st January 1962 by mandate of Parliament after failure of banks left small depositors stranded and though service tax was introduced as far back as 1994 on insurance service , the nature of its activity left it undisturbed from tax oversight until the issue determined by the Tribunal in re Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation fastened the tax liability on them in 2015 and, in accordance with circular of Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC). In the very same decision, it has been recorded that 5.6.2 The facts on record show that they sought exemption as early as 01/08/2008 and pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
