Court confirms service tax liability for consideration received before service, denies Cenvat credit. Error corrections made. Appeal dismissed.

The court upheld the denial of abatement entitlement under Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. and ruled that consideration received before providing taxable service is subject to service tax. The denial of Cenvat credit was justified due to the lack of established taxability. Calculation errors in the show cause notice were appropriately addressed. The time-barred demand was rejected as the appellant's conduct did not align with the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in compliance with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Abatement entitlement under Notification No. 15/2004-S.T.
2. Taxability of advance received before providing taxable service
3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit
4. Calculation errors in the show cause notice
5. Time-barred demand

Abatement entitlement under Notification No. 15/2004-S.T.:
The principal issue of abatement was contested by the assessee but denied by the adjudicating authority based on Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T. and Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. The authority applied the incremental value principle for taxation, ruling against the assessee. The law mandates that consideration received before, during, and after providing taxable service should be included in the net of service tax, leading to a decision against the assessee on this issue.

Taxability of advance received before providing taxable service:
The law unambiguously states that consideration received before, during, and after providing taxable service must be subject to service tax. The authority upheld this principle, ruling against the assessee on this issue as well.

Entitlement to Cenvat credit:
Cenvat credit is permissible to prevent cascading effect, but its admissibility is contingent upon taxability. Since taxability was not established, the benefit of Cenvat credit was rightfully denied by the adjudicating authority.

Calculation errors in the show cause notice:
The authority appropriately addressed any calculation errors in the show cause notice in para 16 of the order, with no intervention needed in this regard.

Time-barred demand:
The appellant's conduct indicated that the abatement claimed was not in accordance with the law, rendering the proceeding not time-barred. Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was correctly invoked, and the adjudication was conducted in compliance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the observations and conclusions made in the judgment.

---