2010 (3) TMI 343 - HC - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Service- Circular No. 49/11/2002-S.T., dated 8-12-2002- Whether CESTAT is right in holding that the Assessee is not liable to service tax under the head Consulting Engineering Services on the activities of detailed engineering survey, cadastral survey, soil investigation and drawing/submission, inspite of clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 49/11/2002-S.T., dated 8-12-2002?. Held that- upheld the order made by Commissioner (Appeals). In absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of liability for service tax on consulting engineering services.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the assessee to pay service tax under the head of 'Consulting Engineering Services' for activities like detailed engineering survey, cadastral survey, soil investigation, and drawing/submission. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, alleging suppression of facts to evade payment. The Order-in-Original confirmed a partial demand of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for certain activities but exempted others. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and disposed of the cross objections filed by the assessee.

The appellant revenue contended that activities like engineering survey for pipeline, reconnaissance survey, detailed engineering survey, and detailed route survey fall within the scope of 'consulting engineering' services due to the required engineering skills and technical expertise.

The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the nature of activities like detailed engineering survey, cadastral survey, soil investigation, and drawing/submission. It was found that these activities did not fall under the definition of 'consulting engineer' as they did not involve sufficient engineering skill. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that certain activities would only be taxable upon the amendment in the Budget 2005, hence exempting the assessee from paying service tax for those activities during the relevant period.

The Tribunal, in its order, accepted the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) without recording independent findings. It upheld the decision based on the evidence on record. The court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the liability for service tax on consulting engineering services, emphasizing the need for activities to meet specific criteria to be considered taxable. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence and legal reasoning in determining tax liability, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's order based on the existing facts and legal provisions.