Tribunal dismisses demands for supervision, inspection, goods clearance charges, and training fees.

The Tribunal set aside demands raised against the appellant for supervision and inspection charges, goods cleared with the C and F agent, and training charges. The show cause notice for supervision and inspection charges was issued retrospectively and deemed unsustainable. The demands related to goods cleared with the C and F agent were set aside due to retrospective amendments. The training charges were not considered within the scope of "consulting engineers" services. As a result, all demands were dismissed, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Includibility of supervision and inspection charges in the service tax category of "consulting engineers."
2. Demands confirmed on the assessee for certain goods booked for clearance with the C and F agent.
3. Confirmed demands regarding training charges.

Includibility of Supervision and Inspection Charges:
The appeal arose from an order confirming the includibility of supervision and inspection charges in the service tax category of "consulting engineers." The appellant relied on a larger Bench judgment in the case of L & T Ltd., where it was held that demands cannot be raised against intending agents. Additionally, the appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued retrospectively, making the demands unsustainable. The Tribunal held that supervision and inspection charges are not required to be included in the category of "consulting engineers," setting aside the demands raised on these elements.

Demands for Goods Cleared with C and F Agent:
Regarding demands confirmed on the assessee for goods cleared with the C and F agent, it was noted that the show cause notice was issued after an amendment to the Finance Act brought retrospectively. Citing the apex court judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharati and the Tribunal's judgment in L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd., the demands on this ground were also set aside.

Training Charges Issue:
The appellant argued that the training provided to the employees of purchasers does not fall within the ambit of "consulting engineers" services. The Revenue failed to establish that such training would qualify as "consulting engineers" services. Therefore, the element of training charges added by the lower authorities was set aside. In conclusion, all demands raised on the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the assessee.

---