1. Both the appeals arise in common question of law and arise from respective Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 34/2006 ST dated 2-3-2006 and 33/2006 ST dated 28-2-2006 by which Service Tax has been confirmed on the appellants on the ground that they have not paid the service tax in respect of pre-paid SIM cards sold by them on behalf of BSNL. The appellants contended that the sale of pre-paid SIM Cards does not attract service tax. The learned Counsel submits that the very issue has already been considered by this Bench in the case of South East Corpn. v. CC, CE & ST [Final Order No. 610 of 2007, dated 25-5-2007]. This Bench has held that the service tax cannot be levied as the appellants were carrying on the activity of sale of pre-paid SIM cards.

2. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue is covered by this Bench’s Final Order No. 610/2007 dated 25-5-2007 rendered in the case of South East Corpn. (supra). The finding portion of the said order is re-produced herein below:-

"2. I have heard both the sides in the matter. I am of the considered opinion that the appellants were not carrying on the activity of Business Auxiliary Service. They have purchased BSNL post-paid/pre-paid Cellular SIM Cards and sold the same in the market. They have only received certain amount of profit, which is ultimately a business practice when goods are sold in the market. The issue pertaining to levy of Sales Tax is already before the Apex Court. There is no service carried out by the appellants but actually they have done the activity of purchase and sale which comes within the purview of ‘sale of goods’ and sales tax is attracted. The Commissioner (Appeals)’s finding that the appellant is doing the activity of marketing and distribution of products and it comes with the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service is not correct finding especially, in the light of the appellants having paid full value for the SIM Cards to the BSNL and sold the same on the profit margin. The learned Counsel points out to the correspondence with the BSNL, the appellants had on this issue, and the BSNL had clarified that they had already paid service tax on the SIM cards sold to the appellants. This also clearly shows that the BSNL had already discharged their burden and there cannot be double taxation in the peculiar circumstances of the case. There is no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any."

Respectfully following ratio of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.