2006 (8) TMI 37 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax Consulting engineer service Activity of Eco conservation works to preserve wasteland and bringing them into use especially for development of tribals cannot be considered within the ambit of consulting engineering services

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activities undertaken by the assessee fall under the category of consulting engineering services for the purpose of service tax liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, challenging the decision regarding the service tax liability of the assessee. The assessee was appointed as a Consultant for a project involving ECO Restoration, funded by an Overseas Economic Corporation Fund. The Revenue alleged that the assessee's activities should be considered as providing consulting engineering services, thereby attracting service tax. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention that their work did not fall under the ambit of consulting engineering services.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities primarily involved ECO conservation works aimed at preserving wasteland and utilizing it for the development of tribals. It was noted that the assessee did not engage in providing consulting engineering services as alleged by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the activities of the assessee did not qualify as consulting engineering services for the purpose of service tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected the same, affirming that the activities carried out by the assessee were not subject to service tax as consulting engineering services. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court.