2012 (8) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri N.R. Bhaskar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2007 (7) S.T.R. 437 (Tribunal)] which has held that the activity carried on by the assessee i.e., technical .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gineer Service and leviable to service tax? (3) Whether the decisions relied by CESTAT do constitute respondent-integra and whether the ratio of those decisions could have any applicability to the present case? 3. From the aforesaid questions raised, it is clear that the dispute is whether the activity carried on by the company-the respondent, falls within the services of Consulting Engin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Section 35L of the Act which is competent to decide the aforesaid question of law. In that view of the matter, this appeal is rejected as not maintainable reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court. 6. High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced in this case to enable the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X