Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2014) 09 CESTAT CK 0008

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) vs C.S.T., New Delhi

Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 17 September 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Raghuram, J · R. K. Singh, Technical Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No. 52653 Of 2014, Stay Application No. 51855 Of 2014, Service Tax Appeal No. 51565 Of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 241 words
1.

The appellant is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The Commissioner of Service Tax (Adjudication), New Delhi, vide the impugned

order dated 27.12.2013 confirmed service tax liability of Rs.1945,35,25,000/- apart from interest under Section 75 and penalty of an equivalent amount

as the service tax liability assessed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 2007 (the Act). The appellant was found to have provided “insurance

servicesâ€​ during the period in issue.

2.

The Finance Act, 2014 (No.25 of 2014), received the assent of the President on 6.8.2014. This Act introduced Section 100 into the Finance Act

1994. This provision enjoins fortified by a non obstante provision qua provisions of Section 66 of the Act, as it stood prior to 1.7.2012, that no service

tax shall be collected in respect of taxable services provided by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation set up under the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948, during the period prior to 1.7.2012.

3.

It is asserted on behalf of the appellant and conceded on behalf of Revenue that appellant falls within the ambit of the immunities enacted in Section

100 of the Act. As a consequence of this legislative intervention, the service tax liability of the appellant stands effaced. As a result, the impugned

order has become inoperative and the appeal therefore is infructuous. It is so declared. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. As the appeal itself is

disposed of, all pending miscellaneous applications are dismissed, as infructuous.