Consulting Engineer Service coverage was prospective, excluding private limited companies before the amendment took effect.

A private limited company was held outside the pre-1.5.2006 definition of Consulting Engineer Service because that definition covered only professionally qualified engineers or engineering firms rendering engineering advice, consultancy or technical assistance. The later amendment expanding the scope to body corporates and other firms was treated as prospective, so it did not apply to the disputed period. On that basis, service tax liability as a Consulting Engineer was not attracted for the period in question, and the demand, interest and penalties were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether a private limited company was liable to service tax as a Consulting Engineer for the period prior to 1.5.2006 under the then prevailing definition.

Analysis: The relevant definition of Consulting Engineer, as it stood during the disputed period, covered professionally qualified engineers or engineering firms rendering advice, consultancy or technical assistance in engineering disciplines. The later amendment, with effect from 1.5.2006, expanded the scope to include body corporates and other firms. The Division Bench decisions of the Karnataka High Court, considered by the Tribunal, held that before this amendment limited companies were outside the ambit of Consulting Engineer Service.

Conclusion: The appellant, being a private limited company, was not liable to service tax as a Consulting Engineer for the period in dispute. The demand, interest and penalties were set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---