2018 (6) TMI 256 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of Services - services of Survey and preparation of project report for road projects - Consulting Engineering Service or otherwise? - Held that - The Appellant firm is undisputedly not an Engineering Firm. The Proprietor is not a qualified engineer. Only for the reason that he is having skill and knowledge he cannot be considered as professionally qualified Engineer. Since the firm is not a qualified engineering firm therefore the service rendered by them are not covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. The Tribunal in case of CCE, Vadodara-II Vs SKP Projects (P) Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 531 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has held that the services in question would fall under the category of survey and map making service. As the lower authorities have not properly appreciated the facts, it is appropriate to remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the facts afresh and pass appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under the category of "Consulting Engineering Service" for service tax purposes.
2. Whether the Appellant is liable for penalty and interest.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, engaged in survey and project report preparation for road projects, faced a service tax demand under "Consulting Engineering Service." The Appellant argued that their services should be classified as "Survey and Map Making Service" based on their activities. The Appellant, not being a qualified engineer, contended that they did not provide consultancy or technical assistance. Citing relevant case laws and circulars, the Appellant asserted that their services did not fall under the Consulting Engineer category. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the activities were more aligned with surveying and mapping services. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.

2. The Revenue argued that the Appellant's services constituted "Consulting Engineer Service" due to planning, designing, and project report preparation. The Revenue relied on specific orders and circulars to support their stance. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, noting that the Appellant's activities were primarily survey-related and did not involve consultancy or technical advice. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing that the Appellant's services aligned more with survey and road mapping, not consulting engineering.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Appellant's services did not qualify as "Consulting Engineering Service" but rather fell under "Survey and Map Making Service." The case was remanded for further review by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.