https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31285 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the categorization of supervision of erection and commissioning as consulting engineering services, the classification of supervision charges for installation and commissioning, and the applicability of the longer period of limitation in a show cause notice scenario. The Tribunal held that the supervision of erection and commissioning should not be categorized as consulting engineering services for service tax liability. It also determined that supervision charges for installation and commissioning cannot be considered consulting engineers' services. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the demand based on the second show cause notice was barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31285 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the categorization of supervision of erection and commissioning as consulting engineering services, the classification of supervision charges for installation and commissioning, and the applicability of the longer period of limitation in a show cause notice scenario. The Tribunal held that the supervision of erection and commissioning should not be categorized as consulting engineering services for service tax liability. It also determined that supervision charges for installation and commissioning cannot be considered consulting engineers' services. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the demand based on the second show cause notice was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31285