9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 78, the further penalty of Rs.2000/- under section 77 and the penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence that the appellant through Matrix India Entertainment Consultants P. Ltd. (in short Matrix) was providing services to various companies for promotion of their products, whether manufactured directly or indirectly, or marketed or sold by these companies, by agreeing to model herself for advertisement films, TV commercials, still photographing, footage, press advertisement, outdoor, packaging and sales material including backing sheets, mobile stickers, danglers, wobbles, booklets and other printed matters and other promotional material. It was found that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent), M/s Matrix had to receive the entire amount of consideration for promotion of the product and thereafter to discharge the service tax liability on behalf of the appellant and rest of the amount was to be given to the appellant by Matrix, who are the agents for the appellant for discharging the service tax liability. As per section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 the "assessee" means a person liable to pay service tax and includes its agent. There is no dispute that on the activity undertaken by the appellant, the service tax liability has been discharged by Matrix as an agent of the appellant. Therefore, the demands confirmed in the impugned order are not sustainable. He fairly agreed that the service tax has been paid by Matrix under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es material etc. The revenue is of the view that as the appellant is engaged in the activity of promoting/marketing or sales of the product manufactured by her client etc., therefore, the said activity falls under "Business Auxiliary Service". The liability of service tax has not been disputed by the appellant. The appellants contention is that appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as their agent to receive payment on behalf of the appellant from the clients and thereafter discharge the service tax liability on the above activity. These facts are also not in dispute. As per the agreements, the payments are to be made by the clients in the name of M/s Matrix and M/s Matrix has to discharge service tax liability, thereafter the balance amount wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
