2006 (12) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants between 10/2004 to 12/2005 and penalties imposed on it. Service Tax of Rs. 8,94,369/- had been demanded by the joint Commissioner as original authority in his order dated 9-8-2006. He had also imposed an equal amount as penalty under Section 78 on the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 1000 was imposed under Section 77 and penalty @ Rs. 100 per day for the delay in payment of the tax due under Section 76. The order also had demanded interest at the appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy has affirmed the demand of tax and the penalties imposed in the original order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. BHEL and the appellants have entered into a contract ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 80/10/04 S.T. dated 17-9-2004 of the CBEC in its para 20. According to the said clarification, prior to the amendment, the service had covered package tour operators, which involved package tours covering mode of transport other than road. Levy on tour operators engaged in operating tourist vehicles continued even after amendment. The scope of levy was expanded by removing the limitation regarding transportation by tourist vehicles only in the case of package tours. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants were not operating tourist vehicles but employed regular public transport buses for transport of BHEL employees. The above activity did not come within the scope of the levy as amended. 4. Ld. SDR submitted that the tax demanded di....