https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264783 The appellant, a Direct Sales Agent/Associate, challenged a service tax demand for providing Business Auxiliary Service. The appellate order partially allowed the appeal, reducing the tax demand and penalty. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for immunity based on revenue neutrality, emphasizing the clear liability to remit service tax. It highlighted that CENVAT credit rules do not negate the service tax liability. The Tribunal declined to extend revenue neutrality for immunity and directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specified amount, distinguishing between normal and extended limitation periods in tax matters. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Oct 2015 23:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264783 The appellant, a Direct Sales Agent/Associate, challenged a service tax demand for providing Business Auxiliary Service. The appellate order partially allowed the appeal, reducing the tax demand and penalty. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for immunity based on revenue neutrality, emphasizing the clear liability to remit service tax. It highlighted that CENVAT credit rules do not negate the service tax liability. The Tribunal declined to extend revenue neutrality for immunity and directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specified amount, distinguishing between normal and extended limitation periods in tax matters. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264783