S.S. Kang, Vice President. - Heard both sides.

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that applicant is providing service of business auxiliary service. The appellants are authorised franchise of BSNL for marketing of various telecom services such as cellular phones, basic phone connections and customer care and selling of re-charge coupons of BSNL. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in purchasing various service products from BSNL and selling the same to ultimate customers and earned commission at pre-defined rate. BSNL is also an assessee of service tax and paying service tax in respect of the service provided by them. The appellants are paying sales tax in respect of goods sold by them. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Karakkattu Communications v. CCE [Final order Nos. 735-737 of 2007, dated 29-6-2007] whereby in a similar situation, the Tribunal set aside the demand.

3. The contention of the revenue is that as the appellants are rendering service of promoting and marketing the service of BSNL and the activity of promotion or marketing of