2016 (4) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Jamshedpur. That the Appellant is not contesting the issue on merit and the entire service tax alongwith interest has already been paid by his client before the adjudicating proceedings were completed. It was his case that service tax levied on construction services was newly introduced and the Appellant being a small scale provider of services, therefore, the service tax was not paid by the Appellant due to ignorance. The service recipient M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur did not guide the Appellant properly and also did not pay the service tax when orally requested by the Appellant. Ld.Advocate made the bench go through their grounds of appeal to argue that they have not received any service tax from the service recipients. It was very....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this bench. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The Appellant is not contesting payment of service tax and interest and the same was paid during the course of the proceedings. The case of the Appellant is that the penalties are not imposeable on the grounds that the service tax on construction services during the relevant period was newly introduced and the Appellant was ignorant about the prevailing law. It was also argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the service recipient M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur did not guide them properly regarding payment of service tax. However, it is observed from copy of a representative contract No.2300006521/109 dated 14.07.2004 that following clause exists in the contract ente....