2008 (3) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby demand of Rs. 53,291/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act on the ground that the appellants are providing business auxiliary service. 3. Contention of the appellants is that they are working as sub-agent of Shri Rajiv Sanghi who is service provider and has deposi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ghi. 5. I find that in this case contention of the appellant is that the amount in question has already been paid by Shri Rajiv Sanghi the person who provided business auxiliary service. The appellants are only sub-agent. This issue was specifically raised by the appellants before the adjudicating authority but there is no finding in the impugned order in this regard. Therefore, the fact whethe....