Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (10 Jun 2022)

Bank can avail credit of the Service Tax on the deposit insurance service provided by DICGC

MANU/CC/0082/2022

Service Tax

In facts of present case, on the basis of intelligence received that the Appellant-bank had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit in respect of the Service Tax paid on deposit insurance service provided by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (‘DICGC’), investigation was initiated by the Kochi Regional Unit of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI). Scrutiny of documents and statements recorded indicated that the credit availed on the Service Tax paid on deposit insurance service is ineligible.

Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to disallow the wrongly availed credit and also to recover the same along with interest and also for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide order impugned herein confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty, including a separate penalty on the Former Chief Financial Officer of Indian Overseas Bank. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.

The question involved is whether the Appellant-bank can avail credit of the Service Tax on the deposit insurance service provided by DICGC.

The said issue was considered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of South Indian Bank v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax wherein it was held that insurance service provided by DICGC to the banks is an input service and the credit of Service Tax is eligible. In the appellant’s own case, the Tribunal, for a different period, has followed the decision of the Larger Bench and held that the credit is eligible. In view of these decisions, present Tribunal held that, the credit of the Service Tax paid on the basis of premium paid to DICGC is eligible. The impugned order disallowing the credit and confirming the demand, interest and penalty is set aside. The appeals allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved