FACTS & SUBJECT MATTER: SERVICE TAX: 
(1) That the Appellant engaged in the business of providing general insurance services. The Appellant availed CENVAT Credit against payment of tax paid towards the support services and infrastructure facilities received from the various 'motor car dealers'.
(2) That the Revenue Department alleged that such services were not provided by the Dealers (motor car dealers) to the Appellant. The Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated October 15, 2015 was under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 for denying the Credit against the service availed for period of April 2010 to March 2015. The demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated November 28, 2016.
(3) That Also, for the subsequent period of April 2015 and July 2017 the statement of demand dated January 18, 2018 under Section 73(1A) was issued for recovery of inadmissible credit. Thereafter, the said demand was confirmed vide Order-in Original dated January 30, 2021 along with interest and penalty.
(3) That aggrieved by the OIO passed, the Appellant appeal before Appellate Tribunal contending that raising invoices with incorrect descriptions by the service provider i.e. the Dealer (motor car dealers) would not make the transaction invalid, therefore, Credit should not be denied to the recipient of service i.e. the Appellant.

CASE LAW: Tata Aig General Insurance Coltd vs Commr Service Tax- Vi Mumbai on 8 November, 2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 85359 of 2017 (Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, Mumbai, Reagional Branch)

ISSUE : Whether the CENVAT Credit can be denied due to incorrect description of Service on invoices when Service Tax has been correctly paid?

HELD: The CESTAT, Mumbai held as under:
(1) We (CESTAT) took note of the submissions and examined the appeal case records as well as the relied upon judgments. As could be noticed, in the instant case the motor vehicle dealer as an agency was providing services to the Appellant and raising invoices with description of services as per the format provided to it by the Appellant through email. The contract copy filed in response to the summons issued for appearance is not in respect of M/s. Anamallais Motors Pvt. Ltd. who issued the invoices and whose proprietor Smt. A. Umadevi is the authorised insurance agent for the Appellant but Appellant claims ST/85359/2017 ST/ 85635/2021 that agreements entered with car dealers, including the copy of agreement dated 01.11.2012 signed with M/s Unic Automobile (MAH) Pvt. Ltd. (copy filed) are by and large containing same provisions. It is further noticed that the said agreement annexed to the appeal memo as Annexure-4 doesn't contain provision for payment against such services and the modalities of such payment, which Respondent-Department has linked to the number of insurance policies sold but if the same is treated as service received from the car dealers against which Service Tax liability was discharged by the car dealers and the same remained undisputed, there is no point in the denying credits to the Appellant who had availed those services to sale its car insurance policies and this being a separate transaction it is immaterial as to who received commission against generation of a car insurance policy by availing such services. The same fact is also applicable in respect of retainer/retailers who also had provided certain services to the Appellant and this fact has been fortified and approved by the Tribunal and also by Hon'ble High Courts through series of judgments. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the issue is no more res integra that without opening assessment of the provision of service extended by the service provider, CENVAT Credits cannot be denied to the recipient who had paid the required Service Tax through the service receiver in order to avail the input services. Therefore, in furtherance to the judicial precedent set by this Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Courts, the following order is passed.
(2) ST/85359/2017 ST/ 85635/2021 THE ORDER : Both the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VI, Mumbai vide Order-in-Original No. MUM-SVTAX-006-COM-48-16-17 dated 28.11.2016 and the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Mumbai East vide Order-in-Original No. 35/MG/Pr.COMMR/ME/2020- 21 dated 30.01.2021 are hereby set aside with consequential relief, if any.
(3) SUMMARY OF ORDER: Opined that, the Credit cannot be denied to the recipient who had paid the required Service Tax through the service receiver in order to avail the input services. Held that, the appeals are allowed and the Impugned Order are set-aside.