https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764484 CESTAT Chennai held that services received by appellant from overseas supplier involving drilling rig operations with personnel were incorrectly classified as Consulting Engineer Services under section 65(31) of Finance Act 1994. The tribunal found that 28 personnel provided including rig managers, drillers, mechanics, and operators were not advisory consultants but operational staff. The dominant intention was providing drilling rig with personnel for exploration activities, not consultancy services. Services should be classified under Supply of Tangible Goods Services. Revenue failed to prove consulting engineer service classification. Reimbursements for expenses not subject to service tax. Appeal disposed off in favor of appellant. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764484 CESTAT Chennai held that services received by appellant from overseas supplier involving drilling rig operations with personnel were incorrectly classified as Consulting Engineer Services under section 65(31) of Finance Act 1994. The tribunal found that 28 personnel provided including rig managers, drillers, mechanics, and operators were not advisory consultants but operational staff. The dominant intention was providing drilling rig with personnel for exploration activities, not consultancy services. Services should be classified under Supply of Tangible Goods Services. Revenue failed to prove consulting engineer service classification. Reimbursements for expenses not subject to service tax. Appeal disposed off in favor of appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764484