Tribunal rules against service tax demand for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report services

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services was not sustainable. It was determined that the appellant was not a professionally qualified engineer providing services in the field of engineering, and the activities in question did not fall within the scope of Consulting Engineer Service as defined by the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was allowed due to the lack of evidence supporting the classification of the services under Consulting Engineer Service.

---

---

Issues:
Service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Service Tax Demand:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming a service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for providing vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand stating that the activities fell under the category of Consulting Engineer Service as defined in Section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that vaastu advice, preparation of blueprints, and project report typing and binding services did not fall under Consulting Engineer Service. They claimed that vaastu advice is mythological and not related to engineering, and that blueprints and project reports are not activities of a consulting engineer but rather of a tracer.

3. Arguments of the Departmental Representative:
The Departmental Representative contended that vaastu advice should be considered under Consulting Engineer Service as it is related to engineering, opposing the appellant's arguments.

4. Judgment and Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of Consulting Engineer Service and Consulting Engineer as per Section 65(105)(g) and Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was established that for a service to be covered under Consulting Engineer Service, the individual providing the service must be a professionally qualified engineer and should have rendered advice or consultancy in one or more disciplines of engineering. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence presented to show that the appellant was a professionally qualified engineer or that the services provided were related to any discipline of engineering. The activities of making blueprints, typing project reports, and providing vaastu advice were not proven to be within the scope of Consulting Engineer Service. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had not fulfilled its obligation to demonstrate that the appellant's services qualified under Consulting Engineer Service, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the service tax demand under Consulting Engineer Service for vaastu advice, blueprints, and project report typing and binding services was not sustainable as the appellant was not proven to be a professionally qualified engineer providing services in the field of engineering. The appeal was allowed based on the lack of evidence to support the classification of the services under Consulting Engineer Service.

---