TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us products of BSNL for which they were receiving the commission and was not paying service tax thereon. During the audit, this fact was noticed by the department and a show cause notice was issued on 12.1.2007 to the appellant for demand of Rs. 77,578/- for the period 1.9.2006 to 31.3.2007 which was confirmed ex-parte vide Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals),who upheld the Order-in- Original. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the commission received by them. He further submits that BSNL has discharged ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& ST, Ludhiana-2017 (49) STR 409 (Tri.-Del.) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the service tax has rightly been demanded from the appellant as the appellant has received commission from BSNL which is liable to service tax. Ld.DR submits that the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of Daya Shankar Kailash Chand (supra), Chotey Lal Radhey Shyam (supra), South East Corporation (supra), R. Venkataramanan (supra) are not applicable to the present case. In those cases, they are only dealing with issue of purchase and sale of sim card, no question of charging of service tax on commission amount was raised therein whereas in the present case, the only issue involved is regardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 (Tri.-Del.)]. Our attention has also been drawn to the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of GR Movers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow [2013 (30) S.T.R. 634 (Tri.-Del.)] and Daya Shankar Kailash Chand v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow [2013 (30) S.T.R. 428 (Tri.-Del.)]. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has upheld these two decisions. 7. We find that this contrived distinction attempted in the impugned order by the first appellate authority does not conform to logic or to any commercial distinction. On the contrary, the three decisions cited above are clear in laying down the principle that the user of the telephony services is the service recipient and tax liability on the gross value charged fr....