TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on commission basis since 1999. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. was the main supplier from whom appellant received the goods such as writing and printing paper etc. The appellants were appointed as a representative of M/s. APR Packaging Ltd. for marketing services in relation to sale of paper bags. The activity of such marketing services being a service in relation to promotion or marketing of sale of goods produced or provided by a client would fall under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as defined under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said services became exigible to service tax with effect from 9.7.2004 as exemption to the commission agents was granted for the period 1.7.2003 to 8.7.2004 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hakrishnan should be adjusted to the demand raised against the appellant. That the entire service tax due has been paid. Out of the total amount received as commission, an amount of Rs. 47,11,000/- pertains to services rendered by Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan for the marketing activities done by him in Palakkad, Kerala. Only the balance pertains to the appellant Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan has paid service tax of Rs. 4,67,555/- and the appellant has paid service tax of Rs. 3,90,831/-. Both these amounts together would cover the liability over the entire amount of commission. He contended that the discharge of the service tax liability by Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan would absolve the liability of the appellant who is the main contractor. (b) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived a total commission amount of Rs. 87,29,235/- from M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax on the said amount. That the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that out of the total commission, an amount of Rs. 47,11,000/- pertains to Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan. When appellants have received entire commission of Rs. 87,29,235/- for the service rendered to M/s. APR Packaging Ltd. / M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., service tax paid by Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan has nothing to do with the commission received by the appellant. That the authorities below have rightly rejected this contention put forward by the appellant since the same is not supported or established by documents. It is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt shows that Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan has paid the service tax on the commission received from the appellant. The document does not show that any commission was paid by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. to Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan. So the contention of the appellant that Shri V.M. Radhakrishnan was a sub-agent acting on behalf of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. for Palakkad area, and that he has received commission from M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. is untenable. In fact, in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellants have stated in para 2(b) as under:- "(b) AS already mentioned in para 2 of our letter dated 8.9.2006, we availed the services of a sub agent to undertake various activities as referred in question No. 4 of our stat....