TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility 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. - none warrant to apply this concept to legitimise an inference of immunity to tax of the appellant even for the normal period of limitation. Since the Interim Orders referred to above have applied the concept of revenue neutrality to grant waiver of pre-deposit, for the nonce we follow those decisions in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17.10.2011. In March, 2011, the appellant addressed to Superintendent concerned stating that the appellant is of the firm view that it is not liable to service tax since LICHFL is remitting service tax and therefore on the principles of revenue neutrality, there is no liability for the appellant to remit service tax. Notwithstanding such self-certification of immunity to tax by the appellant, Revenue initiated proceedings culminating in the 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 Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to remit service tax for having provided BAS. Since service tax is an indirect tax, the appellant is entitled to recover the component of the service tax suffered by it from the service recipient, LICHFL. LICHFL is consequently entitled to take credit of the service tax reimbursed by that entity to the appellant while remitting its liability to service tax for having provided Banking and Other Financial Services, another taxable service. 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 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitlement to credit inheres in the same entity and in respect of identical taxable event. 7. On the above prima facie analyses, we find none warrant to apply this concept to legitimise an inference of immunity to tax of the appellant even for the normal period of limitation. Since the Interim Orders referred to above have applied the concept of revenue neutrality to grant waiver of pre-deposit, for the nonce we follow those decisions in respect of the extended period and the liability of the appellant for extended period but not for the normal period of limitation. 8. Tax liability of the appellant for the normal period of limitation comes to ₹ 1,79,531/-. We accordingly direct the appellant to pre-deposit this amount along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
