SC Upholds CENVAT Credit on Re-Insurance; Dismisses Revenue SLP:

SC Upholds CENVAT Credit on Re-Insurance; Dismisses Revenue SLP

Court confirms re-insurance qualifies as input service, rejects exclusion under amended CENVAT credit rules

Re-insurance not excluded input service even after 2011 amendment

authorMeetu KumaridateApr 4, 2026
Last update on Apr 4, 2026
SC Upholds CENVAT Credit on Re-Insurance; Dismisses Revenue SLP The dispute concerned CENVAT credit claimed by an insurance company on service tax paid for re-insurance premium, including payments to domestic and foreign reinsurers and contributions to an insurance pool. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that such credit was wrongly availed, especially after the 2011 amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which excluded certain services related to motor vehicles.
No AI in Judgments: Gujarat High Court Issues Strict Usage Policy
While the Adjudicating Authority partly allowed the claim for the earlier period, it denied credit for 2011–12. On appeal, the Tribunal allowed the credit, holding that re-insurance services were not covered by the exclusion. This view was upheld by the High Court, following which the Revenue approached the Supreme Court. Central Issue: Whether re-insurance services fall within the exclusion clause under the amended definition of “input service” under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
Finance Act 2026: Big GST Relief for Indian Companies Providing Intermediary Services to Foreign Clients
SC's Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue. It found no error in the reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and noted that a similar view taken by the Rajasthan High Court had already been affirmed earlier by dismissal of an SLP. The Court effectively upheld the position that re-insance services are fundamentally distinct from insurance services relating to motor vehicles. While the exclusion clause applies to insurance services “in relation to a motor vehicle,” re-insurance operates at a different level it covers the insurer’s own risk exposure and not the insured asset itself.
ROC Issues Penalty Order for Non-Filing of DIR-12 for Director's Resignation
Since the High Court had correctly appreciated this distinction and followed settled judicial precedent, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. Consequently, the entitlement of the assessee to avail CENVAT credit on re-insurance services for the disputed period stood affirmed, and all pending applications were disposed of. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…