Consulting Engineer classification fails where service provider is not a professionally qualified engineer, and tax demand cannot stand.

Services could not be taxed as Consulting Engineer services because the respondent was not a professionally qualified engineer, but held a Master of Science degree in Chemistry. The classification issue also considered whether a full-time employee-director, paid by the company, could fall within that taxable category. As the statutory description of Consulting Engineer is confined to services provided by a professionally qualified engineer, the lower appellate authority's view was upheld. The service tax demand therefore could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's services could be taxed as Consulting Engineer services for service tax purposes.

Analysis: The respondent was not a professionally qualified engineer but held a Master of Science degree in Chemistry. The dispute also concerned whether his role as a full-time employee-director, remunerated by the company, could fall within the taxable category of Consulting Engineer services. Since the statutory description of a Consulting Engineer is confined to services provided by a professionally qualified engineer, the classification adopted by the lower appellate authority was found to be correct.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable to be treated as a Consulting Engineer, and the service tax demand could not be sustained.

---