Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax-VI (CESTAT Mumbai)
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai addressed the issue of denying CENVAT credit at the receiver’s end based on incorrect service descriptions in the invoices issued by the service provider. The case involved Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., and the denial of CENVAT credit was challenged in the appeal.
Key Points and Arguments:
Background:
- Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. was in the business of providing general insurance services and received infrastructure facilities and support services from various motor car dealers.
- Investigations revealed that the services described as “work stations, support services, and display service” provided by the motor car dealers were not actually rendered.
- A show-cause cum-demand notice was issued, denying CENVAT credit availed by Tata AIG to the extent of Rs. 7,53,33,677 for the period from April 2010 to March 2015. Subsequent demands were made for the period between April 2015 and June 2017.
Grounds for Denial: The denial was based on the grounds that the dealers were not providing the services as described, and the amount paid to them was a percentage of the insurance premium collected, not the specified services.
Appellant’s Arguments:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
