|
2023-TIOL-94-CESTAT-MUM
Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Ltd Vs CST
ST - In impugned order, 'surrender charge' retained by appellant upon withdrawal of 'insured' from 'unit linked insurance policies (ULIP)' between 1st April 2009 and 30th June 2010 and thereafter between 1st May 2011 and 31st March 2012, has been held as liable to tax for rendering of 'taxable services' enumerated in section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 - From analysis of scheme of voluntary withdrawal from coverage under 'unit linked insurance policy (ULIP)', it is seen that transaction has been contrived by adjudicating authority as an issue under section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 - The money transmitted to appellant by insured was, indisputably, subjected to tax in accordance with enumeration in section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 and it is, admittedly, beyond the scope of taxing statute to subject past transactions to levy that may have been introduced subsequently which, in any case, is not the submission of Revenue in present dispute and nor in re Bharti-AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. - It is, unabashedly, about treating the return of consideration, once already considered for taxability, upon discontinuation of contract of service even though such retention does not alter either that reality or that no additional consideration has passed from recipient to appellant while provision of service subsisted - The 'premium' paid in past by recipient was in pursuance of contract providing for amortized payments towards bundled service –each of which was assessed to tax on receipt by appellant – over the contract period and obliging of repayment of amounts, not attributable to service already rendered by coverage and investment, upon termination of contract of service may be treated as consideration only in a bizarre, and perverse, context that is out of touch with reality of transactions in insurance sector - This was the finding in re Bharti- AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd which, de hors the decisions in earlier rulings, led to outcome therein - In view of said decision holding that 'surrender value' so retained had already been subjected to tax as 'premium' for rendering of taxable service and not liable to be taxed again for that very reason upon ceasing to be provision service, no reason found to take a different stand - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-93-CESTAT-AHM
Jyoti Cnc Automation Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Case of revenue is that since the additional premise is not registered, same was separate unit and hence benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. is not applicable to capital goods so cleared to said separate unit of appellant - Capital goods in question were transferred by appellant under transfer invoice to its additional premise situated about 500 mtrs away from its registered factory premise - Both the premises are known as M/s. Jyoti CNC Automation Pvt Ltd; are owned and controlled by same legal entity; and use of said capital goods so transferred to additional premise is exclusive and in or in relation to manufacturing of final products cleared by appellant at its registered factory on payment of duty - If that be so, capital goods in question cannot be said to have been cleared from appellant's factory attracting excise duty but have to be treated as captively used in factory of appellant - Issue is settled by Supreme Court in case of South Eastern Coal Field Ltd 2006-TIOL-87-SC-CX - It follows that additional premise is an extension of factory of appellant and hence benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. cannot be denied to appellant - Further, even if appellant would have paid duty same would have been available as cenvat credit; situation is therefore revenue neutral, in the circumstances, demand of duty on transfer of such capital goods on the ground that other premise is to be treated as separate premise requiring separate registration under the Act is not tenable - As regards, issue of utilization of cenvat credit of basic excise duty for discharge of education cess and secondary and higher education cess, commissioner (A) has set aside the duty demand by giving detailed finding in O-I-A - The said finding of Commissioner (A) is legal and proper - Since department has not preferred appeal against said OIA and hence said order has attained finality in respect of issue of utilization of cenvat credit of basic excise duty towards discharge of education cesses - The OIAs to the extent confirmed duty and penalty is set aside - Accordingly, impugned orders are modified: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-92-CESTAT-AHM
Gujarat Sulphur Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Case of department is that since the appellant have cleared Sulphur Powder which is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 2503 00 90 of Central Excise Tariff which attracts nil rate of duty, appellant was not entitled for cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacture of Sulphur Powder - Appellant is not disputing classification however their contest is that once the duty on finished goods was paid even though it attracts nil rate of duty, cenvat credit cannot be denied - There is no dispute that appellant have paid excise duty on finished goods which is more than the cenvat credit availed on input used in said finished goods, therefore, this is clear case of Revenue neutral, for this reason, demand cannot be sustained - In view of apex court judgement in case of Jamshedpur Beverages 2007-TIOL-230-SC-CX , it is clear case of Revenue Neutrality, therefore, demand is not sustainable on this ground - Appellant have received duty paid inputs, thereafter processed the same and cleared after processing on payment of duty on transaction value - Transaction is squarely covered by Rule 16 of Rules - Cenvat credit on input received by appellant for manufacture of Sulpur Powder cannot be denied - Impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
