Assessee's Installation Work Not Taxable as Consulting Engineer Services

The court held that the assessee's installation/commissioning work did not qualify as 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(18) of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the Revenue's arguments for Service Tax liability, citing supervision charges, the court found in favor of the assessee. Relying on Board Circular No. 79/9/2004-S.T. and precedent cases, the court concluded that the activities in question did not align with the definition of 'Consulting Engineer'. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision and settling the matter in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(18) of Finance Act, 1994 for Service Tax liability based on installation/commissioning work undertaken by the assessee.

Analysis:
The Revenue challenged the Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner held that the installation/commissioning work undertaken by the assessee did not fall under the category of 'Consulting Engineer' as per Section 65(18) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner relied on Board Circular No. 79/9/2004-S.T. to allow the assessee's appeal. The Revenue contended that the assessee only collected supervision charges and not charges for installation/commissioning, thus arguing for Service Tax liability under the heading 'Consulting Engineer'.

The learned JDR supported the Revenue's grounds mentioned in the appeal Memo. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that similar cases had been decided in favor of the assessee by dismissing Revenue appeals. She cited judgments such as CCE, Bangalore v. Air Stream Systems Pvt. Ltd., Turbotech Precision Engg. P. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, and Saurer India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - all supporting the assessee's position.

Upon careful consideration, it was observed that the assessee did not operate as a 'Consulting Engineer' during the relevant period. The Revenue attempted to include erection, installation, and commissioning activities under 'Consulting Engineer', but the Board Circular and cited judgments clearly established that such activities did not fall within this category. Consequently, the issue was settled in favor of the assessee based on the cited judgments and Circulars. The appeal was found to lack merit and was rejected. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open Court.

---