2008 (3) TMI 58 - AT - Service Tax

Assessee designed & manufactured fire-fighting equipments & installed the same at premises of their customers - as per circular 49/11 /2002 erection and commissioning of the fire-fighting equipment were taxable under the category of commissioning and installation service and not under heading Consulting Engineer Service - Commissioning or Installation service will be separately taxable under relevant entry and are not chargeable under Consulting Engineer Services - revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Order-in Appeal vacating a demand of service tax
- Interpretation of Circulars regarding consulting engineer services and commissioning and installation services

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in Appeal vacating a demand of service tax imposed on a company for rendering engineering consultancy services. The Revenue contended that the company provided technical assistance in the form of erection and commissioning of machinery, falling under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. The company argued that the Circular No. 79/9/2004-S.T. clarified that erection, installation, and commissioning were not covered under Consulting Engineer Services.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions and reviewed the case records. It was established that the company designed, manufactured, and installed fire-fighting equipment for its clients. The Tribunal noted that as the equipment was designed and manufactured by the company itself, no engineering consultancy was involved in the process. Regarding the erection and commissioning activities, the CBEC's Circular dated 13th May 2004 clarified that such services were taxable under commissioning and installation services, not Consulting Engineer Services.

3. The Circular highlighted that charges for erection, installation, and commissioning were not covered under Consulting Engineer Services. It differentiated between commissioning or installation services, which would be separately taxable under relevant entries. The Tribunal concluded that the company did not provide Consulting Engineer Services, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the interpretation of relevant Circulars and the distinction between consulting engineer services and commissioning and installation services, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.