VKJ Latest News Update

VKJ Law Offices of Vinay K. Jain Advocates & Solicitors

ST – Input service – Whether Service tax charged on insurance premium paid by banks to DICGC is admissible as CENVAT credit – Matter listed: HC

2019-TIOL-2042-HC-MUM-ST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Case Tracker
ICICI BANK LTD Vs CST    [CESTAT]

Central Excise Appeal No. 143 of 2019

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Vs

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX
MUMBAI

M S Sanklecha & Nitin Jamdar, JJ

Dated: August 29, 2019

Appellant Rep by: Mr Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms Ankita Vashistha i/b UBR Legal 
Respondent Rep by: Mr Pradeep S Jetly a/w Mr J B Mishra

ST – CENVAT – Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 – CESTAT has held that premium paid on deposit insurance to DICGC is not an ‘Input service’ – Appellant submits that the issue is covered in their favour by the decisions in DCB Bank Ltd.  2017-TIOL-2849-CESTAT-MUM and Punjab National Bank  2018-TIOL-1395-CESTAT-DEL; that instead of taking a view that is contrary to the co-ordinate bench decision in the cited cases (supra), the Tribunal should have referred the issue to a Larger Bench; that in subsequent matters, the Tribunal has referred this very issue to the Larger Bench in Latur District Central Co-op Bank Ltd.  2019-TIOL-2099-CESTAT-MUM  and, therefore, the impugned order warrants being set aside and the appeal be listed along with the other matters referred to the Larger Bench for a fresh decision on merits – AR submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been challenged by Revenue before the High Court to the extent it has not imposed any penalty upon the appellant; that the present appeal be heard along with Revenue’s appeal – Matter listed on 13 September 2019:  High Court  [para 5, 7]

Matter listed

Case laws cited:

DCB Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I – 2017-TIOL-2849-CESTAT-MUM… Para 2

Punjab National Bank Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax – 2018-TIOL-1395-CESTAT-DEL… Para 2

State Bank of Patiala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-II (2019) VIL 426… Para 3

Latur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax – 2019-TIOL-2099-CESTAT-MUM… Para 3

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order dated 12th February, 2019 = 2019-TIOL-589-CESTAT-MUM passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).

2. The appellant urges the following re-framed substantial questions of law for our consideration :-

(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to avail of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the insurance premium to ensure the deposits of its constituents with it to the different Insurance and Guarantee Corporation ?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have referred the issue to a larger bench as there were contrary decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in the case of DCB Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai (2017) 6 GSTL 479 = 2017-TIOL-2849-CESTAT-MUM and Punjab National Bank Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax – 2018-TIOL-1395-CESTAT-DEL ?

3. Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal states that the issue raised herein viz. entitlement to avail of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the insurance premium to insure the deposits of its constituents is covered in its favour by decision in DCB Bank Ltd. (supra) and Punjab National Bank (supra) of the Tribunal. The grievance of the appellant herein is that instead of taking a view that is contrary to the co-ordinate bench decisions in cases DCB Bank Ltd. (supra) and Punjab National Bank (supra) the Tribunal should have referred the issue to a larger bench. It is pointed out that in subsequent matters, the Tribunal has referred this very issue to the larger bench in State Bank of Patiala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-II (2019) VIL 426 and Latur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Service Tax Appeal No. 8422 of 2018) = 2019-TIOL-2099-CESTAT-MUM.

4. In the above view, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal be listed along with the other matters referred to the larger bench for fresh decision on merits.

5. Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the impugned order dated 12th February, 2019 of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Revenue to the extent it has not imposed any penalty upon the appellant. Mr. Jelty, states that the appeal has been filed and the objections of the Registry are to be removed. Mr. Jetly, further undertakes to remove the objections within one week, so the Revenue’s appeal as well as the appellants appeal could be heard together. This appeal along with the Revenue’s appeal, particulars of which would be given by Mr. Jetly to the Court Associate, be listed on 13th September, 2019.

6. Parties are put to notice that this appeal itself may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission on the next date.

7. Stand over to 13.09.2019.

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: