https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174588 The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned Order-In-Original (OIO) and determining that the appellant's services did not qualify as "Consulting Engineer Services," thus exempting them from service tax liability. The court found that the appellant's activities, as described in the appointment letter, did not meet the criteria of providing consultancy or technical advice essential for such classification. Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in the penalties imposed, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on the merits, rendering the penalty issue moot. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:22:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174588 The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned Order-In-Original (OIO) and determining that the appellant's services did not qualify as "Consulting Engineer Services," thus exempting them from service tax liability. The court found that the appellant's activities, as described in the appointment letter, did not meet the criteria of providing consultancy or technical advice essential for such classification. Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in the penalties imposed, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on the merits, rendering the penalty issue moot. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174588