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

....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 have been awarded with a work contract by NTPC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 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 it cannot be charged to Service tax under the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 transfer of property of goods involved in the "Works Co....