Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. From the point of view of Revenue, the appellant-assessee was appointed, through an advertising sales agreement dated 1 st October 1995, as the exclusive agent of M/s MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd for distribution of channels of the latter, sale of airtime slots for advertisements to be carried in these channels and to conclude agreements on behalf of such channels. Invoices were allegedly issued to the advertisers by the overseas entity but the collections, as well as the remitting of taxes, devolved on the appellant-assessee. After 29th March 2011, appellant-assessee contracted with M/s MSM Discovery for the distribution of channels; the revenues of the latter comprised 10% of the subscription collection to be retained while transferring the rest back to the overseas entity.

19. While both are intended to burden certain events with the burden of levy, the tangibility of one confers a simplicity of description that the other cannot aspire to. Manufacture is an activity that does not require any crutch of externalities for ascertainment but service is nothing but a figment that acquires corporeal significance only with identity of recipient and provider attended by making over consideration. Ergo, the inevitability of a definition, which cannot but include the provider of service but which, if overlaid on the template of the other eligible activity, i.e., manufacture, in which 'manufacturer' is identified by construing from this very expression, will lead to irreconcilable anomalies. The levy on manufacture is crystallised on the product without having to take recourse to manufacturer making abundantly clear, by implication, that the manufacturer pays the duty and takes eligible credit. Likewise, in section 66 of Finance Act, 1994, there is no reference to any person but only to the taxable events described in section 65(105), and in the successor section 65B, even less so. The complexity of definition of taxable activity, necessitating human presence, is now sought to be ST/87215, 87222 & 87223/2016 superimposed on the CENVAT credit scheme which recognises only the taxpayer within its ambit. The deployment of expressions in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 warrants recourse to Finance Act, 1994 only for interpreting expressions that are not defined therein. As the said Rules do not allude to 'taxable service' except with the qualification 'provider of', and is defined in rule 2(q) and rule 2(r) as a composite expression, which is not untrammeled, even the parent statute may be unable to afford an interpretation. By inclusive qualification, rule 2(r) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 brings 'person liable to pay tax' within its ambit. For the period prior to 1st July 2012, as we have held supra, the provider of the service, as explicitly legislated in section 65(105)(zk) of Finance Act, 1994, is the agency in India. For the period thereafter, in the absence of any reference to such agency, the levy of tax from the appellant-assessee suffices to bring them within the definition of 'provider of taxable service' in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Once the tax liability is accepted by the appellant-assessee and discharge thereof has been acknowledged by the State, the privileges arising from such cannot be denied save for express exclusion in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. There is no recognition of agency within, or as a substitute, for person liable to tax. Non-taxability of the service is not conceded by Revenue and the tax, not being payable by the overseas entity, is statutorily recoverable from the appellant-assessee which would not have devolved on them ST/87215, 87222 & 87223/2016 had they been merely a representative for discharging tax liability.

20. The levies devolve on the person liable to tax as laid out in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and, in view of rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit can be taken only by the entity burdened with the incidence of tax. That is the sole criteria of eligibility to take credit and not the process by which broadcast signals are received in India.

21. In the impugned service, while the transaction may be undertaken by an overseas entity, the provider of the same service, by the legal fiction of the definitions, of taxable service as well as the providing entity, is not the owner of the uplink facility but the appellant-assessee. That the tax liability has been discharged by the appellant-assessee is not in dispute. Consequently, there is no bar on the appellant-assessee availing the credit of tax paid by them on services procured by them. The law has erased the overseas entity out of existence and it is not within the competence of the adjudicating authority to breathe life into such erasure merely to deny the benefit of CENVAT credit. Therefore, the availment of credit on input services deployed for providing the 'taxable service', as opposed to the corresponding commercial contract, cannot be held to be outside the framework of law.

23. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the decision of the Tribunal in Star India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I [2015 (38) STR 884 (Tri-Mumbai)] and in BBC World (I) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (14) STR 152 (Tri-Del)] having held that tax liability devolves on the entity in India by a deeming fiction should logically lead to the conclusion that such entities are not the real providers of service. We find ourselves unable to accept that proposition for the said decision was rendered, as pointed out by Learned Counsel, in the context of an assessee claiming that the discharge of tax liability, as broadcaster, by ST/87215, 87222 & 87223/2016 debit of CENVAT credit arising from discharge of tax liability on 'reverse charge' for rendering of services by overseas entities. On the contrary, the finding therein that the agency in India is fastened with the liability of discharging tax would support the claim of the appellants herein. The decision of Tribunal in Modiopon Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2009-TIOL-1161- CESTAT-MUM] is also not relevant. Our findings supra on the absence of deeming fiction in the taxable entry discards consideration of this submission on behalf of Revenue.