2017 (12) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... - for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 12/09/2012 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi - II. The appellants are engaged in providing various services mainly relating to field publicity, event management etc. The dispute in the present appeal relates to two such activities of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 16/2002-ST was denied for such services as the appellants did not provide service directly to UNICEF. A total service tax demand of Rs. 9,42,159/- was confirmed against the appellant alongwith penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the original order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alf of these two parties to the main client. We find no merit in the submission of the appellant that the parties to whom they raised bill and received the consideration cannot be considered as their clients or service recipient. The services were rendered to the main client on behalf o these two parties. Though, the appellant provided only part of the service which was agreed upon between these t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actor when the main contractor is liable to discharge full service tax. Though the said principle is not applicable against the tax liability but the question of invoking extended period is to be answered in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that there is no case of fraud, mis-statement etc. in the non-payment of tax on this activity by the appellant. 5. On the second issue regardin....