2008 (11) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri V. Poorna Chandra Rao, for the Respondent. ORDER In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amounts of Service/Penalties. (i) Service Tax - Rs. 4,73,23,713/- (ii) Equal penalty under Section 78 (iii) Penalties under Section 76 and 77 2. The learned consultant who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that the appellants ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from 1-6-2007. In these circumstances, he stated that prima facie they have a very strong case on merits. He further referred to the decision of the Chennai Bench in the case of Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tri.-Chennai). Further, he referred to a large number of decisions of this Bench and other benches which have held that whenever a new service is introduced i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that 'works contract' became liable for service at a latter date, is not material. 4. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the contract is clearly a 'works contract' as seen from Para 5.1 of the contract. The same is reproduced below. 5.1.0 The award of work under this contract is on "Works Contract Basis". You shall be responsible for payment of any tax levied on the....