https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187309 The appellant disputed being categorized as a "Consulting Engineer" and argued their services were commercial coaching or training. The court found that the appellant's activities involved training and sharing fees with a scientific society, rather than solely providing advisory services as expected in Consulting Engineer services. As a result, the confirmation of service tax on the appellant was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment clarified the distinction between Consulting Engineer services and training/coaching services, emphasizing the need for services to be in an advisory capacity for the former category. en-us Wed, 10 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:38:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187309 The appellant disputed being categorized as a "Consulting Engineer" and argued their services were commercial coaching or training. The court found that the appellant's activities involved training and sharing fees with a scientific society, rather than solely providing advisory services as expected in Consulting Engineer services. As a result, the confirmation of service tax on the appellant was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment clarified the distinction between Consulting Engineer services and training/coaching services, emphasizing the need for services to be in an advisory capacity for the former category. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187309