9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which CENVAT credit may be availed under the Rules. The liability of the appellant to remit service tax for having provided BAS is clear and beyond dispute. Such liability is not eclipsed on the premise that had the appellant remitted service tax, LICHFL could have taken credit of the same. The whole schemata of taxation at the level of each taxable event would be rendered otiose and inoperative on application of the concept of revenue neutrality as a clog on the liability to service tax. - Revenue neutrality may conceptually arise if the liability to tax and the entitlement to credit inheres in the same entity and in respect of identical taxable event. - Partial stay granted. - Application No. ST/STAY/60550/2013-CU[DB] In Appeal No. ST/5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... primary adjudication order, which was substantially confirmed by the impugned appellate order. 3. Shri AK Batra, ld. consultant for the appellant strenuously contended that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in view of the fact that the appellant clearly sensitised the Department regarding immunity to tax as early as in March, 2011; on the basis of the principle of revenue neutrality there is no liability to tax; and in any event the period 01.04.2006 to 30.09.2006 is even beyond the extended period of limitation, i.e., five years. 4. Shri AK Batra refers to Interim Orders of the Tribunal in Neeraj Prasad Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2013 (31) STR 100 (Tri.-Del.); PTL Enterprises Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin [ 2013 (30) STR 525 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. In these circumstances, since LICHFL could have taken credit and therefore remitted its service tax liability less the service tax reimbursed by LICHFL to the appellant, the State in any event suffers no loss of revenue if the appellant fails to remit service tax on BAS, since LICHFL has remitted service tax on the whole of the consideration received by it for having provided BOFS and this subsumes service tax liability of the appellant. Consequently, revenue neutrality results, according to the appellant. 6. We find the concept of revenue neutrality pleaded in the above illustrative transaction to be creative and attractive at first blush but wholly unacceptable as a normative principle. Entitlement to credit is predicated on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
