9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order without following the directions contained in the remand order of this Tribunal - appellants have made a prima facie case against the impugned demand and penalties – stay granted - S/57/2008/MAS - 896/2008 - Dated:- 3-10-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri Vijayakumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Vide Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the adjudicating authority has not met the challenge raised by the appellants in the reply to the show cause notice to the effect that the appellants did not conform to the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' in the Act. They were neither professionally qualified engineers nor were they a firm of engineers, rendering engineering consultancy service. In the circumstances, I find that the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order vacated by the Tribunal. He had presumed that a Company which had rendered technical assistance or advice had to be an Engineering firm. The type of advice rendered by M/s. RPCL could only be given by technically knowledgeable persons. Therefore, M/s. RPCL had to be considered as an Engineering firm. The expression 'Consulting Engineer' could not be understood narrowly. It is submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al assistance involved could be rendered only by a firm run by professionally qualified Engineers. Argued by the appellant the Commissioner has passed the impugned order without following the directions contained in the remand order of this Tribunal. In the circumstances, I find that the appellants have made a prima facie case against the impugned demand and penalties. Accordingly, there will be w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
