9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consulting Engineer. 3. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered in holding that valuation of immovable property is different from the advice/technical assistance normally rendered by a Consulting Engineer. The finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in para 8 of the order which is as under :- "8. The task undertaken by a valuer is basically in the nature of expression of an opinion. It does not involve any consultancy or technical assistance. The valuation aspect, though has some engineering content in it, involves economic as well as commercial aspects such as market perceptions, real estate conditions etc. It is also seen from the constitution of the Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is as under :- "17. The learned Counsel says that the "service" offered by an "engineer" in his capacity as "registered valuer" of immovable property cannot be covered under any of these ten categories. The argument has to be mentioned only to be rejected. The last sentence itself suggests that the "list is not exhaustive and it only illustrates the wide scope and nature of the services rendered by a consulting engineer". In our opinion, a consulting engineer has to use his experience and knowledge of engineering necessarily to arrive at a correct valuation of the immovable property. The argument that mere valuation of an immovable property is not an advice in the nature of "engineering advice" is obviously incorrect because where the k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot, therefore, accept the contention raised by the petitioner that such engineers who offer the advice in their capacity as the "registered valuers" of immovable property or plant and machinery cannot be brought into the tax-net under Section 65(11) read with Section 65(48)(g) of the Finance Act. We do not find any merit in the petition and would dismiss the same. No costs". 5. Shri Aswathanarayana, learned Chartered Accountant, appearing for the respondents, justified the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal. He said that in the case referred to and relied upon by the Revenue, composite service was rendered by the Engineer and accordingly, it was held that valuation of immovable property to be regarded as advice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, as valuer of immovable property would be liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 as a consulting engineer. In the view we have taken, we have no alternative but to confirm the duty as levied by the original authority. 7. As regards penalty, we find that the Assistant Commissioner, as per his orders, apart from interest, imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,372/- and Rs. 6,926/-respectively. Since the Commissioner was of the view that the activity undertaken by the party does not amount to service, he dropped the service tax as well as penalty. In view of the decision of the Madras High Court referred to above, we have taken the view that the activity attracts service tax, consequently, it attracts penalty also. But, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
