The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal by M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, ruling that credit cannot be denied on grounds not raised in the Show Cause Notice. The dispute arose over the denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for vehicle repair claims for the period April 2011 to September 2011. The department had denied credit, citing an amendment to the definition of “input services” in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which excluded services related to motor vehicles.
The Appellant argued that the amendment was prospective and did not apply to services received before April 2011. The Counsel for the Appellant, R. Charulatha, contended that the amendment was curative and retrospective in nature, making authorized service stations credit always available. The Appellant relied on favourable Tribunal decisions in similar cases, stating that vehicle repair services constitute input services as they enable the company to fulfill its insurance obligations.
The Counsel for the Respondent, Rajini Menon, argued that the invoices were issued to individual vehicle owners and not to the insurer, and therefore, the Appellant cannot claim CENVAT credit. The Respondent also argued that after the amendment to the definition of “input service” dated 01.04.2011, authorized station services were specifically excluded, rendering the Appellant ineligible for CENVAT credit on such services for the relevant period.
The Tribunal, consisting of Technical Member, Vasa Seshagiri Rao, heard and reviewed the matter challenged by the Appellant. The Tribunal held that the amendment to the “input services” definition was prospective in nature and agreed with the appellant. The Tribunal stated that the adjudicating authorities had exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing new allegations, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal also found that the services in question were delivered to the appellant on or before 31.03.2011, and therefore, the amended definition of “input service” did not apply to these transactions. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of invoices being in the name of insured individuals was settled in favour of the appellant by earlier decisions.
Ultimately, the Appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, and the impugned Order in-Appeal dated 01.06.2015, along with the demand for CENVAT credit, interest, and penalties, was set aside. The Order was pronounced in open court on 11.11.2025. The decision is a significant victory for the Appellant, as it clarifies that credit cannot be denied on grounds not raised in the Show Cause Notice and that the amendment to the “input services” definition is prospective in nature.