2007 (3) TMI 62 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Service Revenue contended that the activity of the appellant i.e. certification of ISO 9001 unit to their client fall within the Consulting Engineer service and liable to pay tax After not finding any sufficient evidence from revenue rejected his contention by the learned JDR

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the party is liable to pay service tax for Consulting Engineering Services provided during 2001 to 2003.
2. Whether the party falls under the category of Consulting Engineer for the purpose of service tax.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the Order-in-Original that imposed service tax, interest, and penalty on the assessee for Consulting Engineering Services provided. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the show cause notice, highlighting that it did not clarify how the party fell under the category of Consulting Engineer. It was revealed that the party acted as an accredited agent for a National Accreditation Board, certifying clients for quality management systems, particularly for ISO certifications. The Commissioner concluded that the party's activities did not align with the definition of Consulting Engineer under Circular No. 1/1/2002-S.T., thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.

2. During the proceedings, no representatives appeared for the Respondents. The learned Judicial Member argued based on the 'Grounds of Appeal'. Upon careful consideration, it was observed that the Revenue failed to present substantial grounds to establish the party's certification activities as falling within the realm of Consulting Engineer services. The absence of engineering services and the lack of clarity in the Order-in-Original further weakened the Revenue's case. The Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly examined Circular No. 1/1/2002-ST and found no basis to support the Revenue's appeal, ultimately rejecting it.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision that the party was not liable to pay service tax as a Consulting Engineer. The detailed analysis highlighted the discrepancies in the show cause notice, the nature of the party's certification activities, and the lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments based on the relevant circular and absence of engineering services.