Appellants exempt from service tax on Consulting Engineering Services. Finality of previous judgments supports their position.

The Tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax under Consulting Engineering Services. Previous favorable judgments for the appellants had attained finality, supporting their argument that the nature of the contracts was composite and not subject to service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Liability to pay service tax under Consulting Engineering Services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in turnkey projects, entered into contracts with a corporation for engineering and construction services. The coordination agreement stated the obligations as a single obligation and detailed the completion of the facility. The appellant initially paid service tax but later sought a refund, which was rejected. The Tribunal previously held that the appellants did not render Consulting Engineering Services, leading to a refund. The issue attained finality after a High Court dismissal.

2. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for non-filing of service tax returns. The appellant responded, stating no taxable services were rendered. Subsequently, a demand for service tax was raised for a specific period. The original authority confirmed the demand, leading the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions favored them, emphasizing the project's turnkey nature and citing relevant case law. They contended that the contract was composite, involving material and labor, and not subject to service tax before a specified date. The extended period was deemed inapplicable due to the refund granted earlier.

4. The Department argued that the contracts were independent, each serving a different purpose. The nature and scope of the contracts were outlined, distinguishing between design and engineering and procurement and construction. The coordination agreement did not alter the work's nature, and the appellant's services were rightly classified under Consulting Engineering Service, warranting service tax payment.

5. The Tribunal noted the previous favorable judgments for the appellant, which had attained finality. Citing relevant case law, it held that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax under Consulting Engineering Services. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's final decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.

---