TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice, a part of the premium collected towards savings(investment), cannot be considered as an exempted service and demand of 6% of the value of the premium attributable to other than risk coverage be confirmed under Rule 6(3(i) of CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004. The impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed. - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. S. S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Mr. Rajesh Sastry, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER These three appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-Original as tabulated below, which are passed by the Commissioner of Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore. Appeal No. OIO No. Period Duty Penalty C/25904/2013 No.158/2012-ST Commr.) dt. 20.12.2012 2009-2010 Rs.86,88,46,162/- Rs.86,88,46,162/- C/25904/2013 No.158/2012-ST Commr.) dt. 20.12.2012 2008-2009 Rs.76,82,48,992/- Rs.76,82,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o investments/servicing were not chargeable to Service Tax prior to 01.04.2011. Accordingly, these services were clarified to be exempt from payment of service tax. Consequently, show-cause notices were issued to the appellant under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the value of the exempted service. 4. He has submitted that the definition of exempted service under Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 comprises of two parts: (a) Taxable services, which are wholly exempt from payment of tax. (b) Services other than taxable service on which no tax is levied. He has submitted that the services of life insurance is a taxable service and the same is not wholly exempt from payment of service, therefore, it does not fall under the category of exempted service. Further, he has submitted that the appellant did not provide any other services. The word service incorporated in Rule 2(e) in the inclusive part of the definition will mean service other than taxable service. It is submitted that there are no other services provided by the appellant, therefore, the inclusion part of the definition of exempted service is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-Mum.) ii. Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Alwar: 2022 (7) TMI 924 (CESTAT, New Delhi.) iii. Tiara Advertising vs. Union of India: 2019 (30) GSTL 474 (Telanga-HC) iv. Nagar Urban Co.op Bank Ltd.: 2018 (3) TMI 273 (Tri.-Mum.) v. TATA Technologies Ltd.: 2016 (42) STR 290 (Tri.-Mum.) 7. Further, he has submitted that by amendment to Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2016, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit was allowed, retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2008. Further, he has submitted that Tribunal in a series of cases observed that such amendment is retrospective in effect and would apply for the past period also. i) Reliance Industries Limited reported in 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 96 (CESTST Ahmedabad) ii) Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2020 (7) TMI 264 (CESTAT, Bangalore). iii) Molex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Reported in 2019-TIOL-3205 (CESTAT, Bangalore). iv) E-connect Solutions Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2020 (11) TMI 282 (CESTAT New Delhi). v) Sify Technologies Ltd V/s Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (LTU), C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that a portion of the value of the premium cannot be segregated, when the same is earmarked for the savings/investment component and be considered as an exempted service under the definition of exempted service prescribed under Rule 2(e) of CCR,2004. 13. We find that this issue is no more res integra. It has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, LTU vs. Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd.: 2018-VIL-126-CESTAT-DEL-ST. This Tribunal observed as: 8. Considering the appeal by the Revenue we have examined the tax liability for the services rendered by the appellant-assessee. The appellant-assessee collects ULIP Insurance premium which is essentially an insurance policy having Investment as well as risk cover, The appellant assessee is discharging Service Tax on the portion of amount allocated to the risk cover under Life Insurance Service. A substantial portion of premium collected under ULIP is Invested in various financial Instruments, The Appellant-assessee is managing such Investment on the behalf of the Insured. For managing such Investment and also managing the policy the appellant assessee allocates some portion of the premium towards administra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
