2015 (5) TMI 916 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Service - appellants had provided vaastu advice, blue print and project report typing and binding services - Held that - It is evident that service to be covered under the consulting engineer service. Shri Neeraj Sharma will have to-be shown to be a professionally qualified engineer and should have rendered advice, consultancy or technical assistance in one or more disciplines of engineering. It is nowhere brought out in the order in appeal or in the order in original that Shri Neeraj Sharma is a professionally qualified engineer. Further it is also not brought out as to in which discipline(s) of engineering the service has been rendered. Making blue print, typing, project report done by the appellants will have to be shown to be relating to one or more disciplines of engineering. For example a lay man making a blue print or typing the project report would not qualify to be called a consulting engineer. Thus, we find that Revenue has not been able to discharge its obligation/onus to show that the appellant was professionally qualified engineer and also rendered any advice in relation to any particular branch of engineering - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Service Tax Demand:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming a service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for providing vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand stating that the activities fell under the category of Consulting Engineer Service as defined in Section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that vaastu advice, preparation of blueprints, and project report typing and binding services did not fall under Consulting Engineer Service. They claimed that vaastu advice is mythological and not related to engineering, and that blueprints and project reports are not activities of a consulting engineer but rather of a tracer.

3. Arguments of the Departmental Representative:
The Departmental Representative contended that vaastu advice should be considered under Consulting Engineer Service as it is related to engineering, opposing the appellant's arguments.

4. Judgment and Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of Consulting Engineer Service and Consulting Engineer as per Section 65(105)(g) and Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was established that for a service to be covered under Consulting Engineer Service, the individual providing the service must be a professionally qualified engineer and should have rendered advice or consultancy in one or more disciplines of engineering. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence presented to show that the appellant was a professionally qualified engineer or that the services provided were related to any discipline of engineering. The activities of making blueprints, typing project reports, and providing vaastu advice were not proven to be within the scope of Consulting Engineer Service. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had not fulfilled its obligation to demonstrate that the appellant's services qualified under Consulting Engineer Service, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services was not sustainable as the appellant was not proven to be a professionally qualified engineer providing services in the field of engineering. The appeal was allowed based on the lack of evidence to support the classification of the services under Consulting Engineer Service.