2008 (12) TMI 89 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) found that activities of Engineering Services for pipe line, Reconnaissance survey, Detailed route survey and Detailed engineering survey, cannot be considered as Consulting Engineering Services as not rendered by qualified engineer impugned services, may come in the category of Survey and Map making , which was introduced in 2005 Budget appellant is not liable to pay service tax during the relevant period - revenue appeal against Commissioner s order is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to conclusion of Commissioner (Appeals) on liability to pay Service Tax for Engineering Services.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion that the respondents are not liable to pay Service Tax for activities related to Engineering Services, arguing they do not fall under "Consulting Engineering Services." The Revenue asserts that activities requiring engineering skills and technical expertise are covered under Consulting Engineering Services, citing a Board Circular. The respondents, however, argue they are not an engineering firm and lack qualified engineers, suggesting their services may align with Survey and Map making introduced in the 2005 Budget.

The Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The detailed Engineering Survey involved various tasks like collecting engineering data, liaison with authorities, and utilizing specific equipment and manpower. The Cadastral Survey focused on land ownership information collection, distinct from engineering work. Soil Investigation involved collecting soil samples for testing, with a significant labor component. Drawing/submission tasks included digitizing maps and required substantial material. The Tribunal concurs with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the activities do not fit the definition of 'consulting engineers' for service tax purposes.

The Tribunal notes the proposed taxation of "survey of land and preparation of maps" in the 2005 Budget amendment, indicating these activities were not previously taxed. Referring to the Finance Bill amendment, the Tribunal agrees with the appellant that their activities are not taxable until the relevant provision comes into effect. Consequently, the Tribunal rejects the Revenue's appeal, and the respondent's cross objection is also disposed of accordingly.