2006 (5) TMI 521 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of services provided under the category "Consulting Engineer" and whether the appellant's activities fall under this category.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an Order-in-Appeal stating they were providing services as a "Consulting Engineer," which they disputed. They had a Memorandum of Understanding with a scientific society for training students, not for manpower planning. The appellant handled classes, prepared course material, and provided lab facilities. They argued their services were commercial coaching or training, introduced in Budget 2003-2004, and not Consulting Engineer services. The Commissioner allegedly did not assess the issue properly.

Upon review of the MOU, it was found the appellant and the scientific society jointly provided training and shared fees equally. The appellant's role was training, not advisory as expected in Consulting Engineer services. They were not solely service providers but involved in training and sharing fees. As they did not act in an advisory capacity, the confirmation of service tax on the appellant was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment clarified the distinction between Consulting Engineer services and training/coaching services provided by the appellant. It emphasized the need for services to be in an advisory capacity to fall under the Consulting Engineer category. The decision highlighted the importance of analyzing the nature of services provided to determine the appropriate tax treatment.