TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services rendered to the mobile telecom operators, appellants raise invoices on the other operators who have received the service and pay the service tax. In the instant case, appellants have provided such service to other mobile telecom operators and also received such services from other operators. For the services rendered by the appellants, they have raised invoices against the other operators who received the services. They also received bills from other mobile telecom operators from whom the appellants received such service. During the impugned period, instead of paying service tax on the entire gross amount received by them for the services provided, appellants had paid service tax only on the differential value, ie., difference in v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the service tax which is to be paid on the roaming services received was directly debited to the 'Service Tax Payable Account' instead of debiting it to the 'Cenvat credit account of the appellant. c) The total liability of the appellant during the impugned period is Rs. 1,01,93,193/- The appellant was eligible for credit on national roaming services to the tune of Rs. 49,54,664/- The appellant discharged the differential liability of tax of Rs. 52,38,529/- by debiting, the credit eligible. Instead of paying service tax of Rs. 1,01,93,193/- the appellant paid only Rs. 52,38,529/- debiting the balance payable in the 'service tax payable amount' instead of debiting the Cenvat credit account. This was only an error in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he department. He pleaded to set aside the demand since attributable only due to procedural or accounting error. 3. Against this, the Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the plea of revenue neutrality was not put forward by the appellant before the adjudicating authority. The said issue has been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeal) in para 4.8 of the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also discussed in the very same para that the appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit because the cell phone company with whom the subscriber is registered should collect the service tax from the subscriber irrespective of the adjustment/sharing of the bills with other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax payable account. They contend that it was only an accounting error and there was no intention to avail credit wrongly or to evade payment of tax. The Ld. Counsel has strongly argued that the entire situation is revenue neutral one for the reason that as the appellant paid service tax for the roaming services received from other mobile operators the same would be eligible as Cenvat credit for discharging the tax liability on the amount received by them for the services provided. The demand has been raised only for the very short period from August 2007 to January 2008. On being pointed out the defect in such accounting pattern, the appellant has rectified the same and has started discharging service tax without debiting the amount in suc....