https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260042 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. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260042 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260042