TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and maintenance of HPL plant, by deploying qualified manpower. By treating these services provided by the appellant falling within the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' as defined in section 65(31) of Service Tax, show-cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax short paid. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and subsequently the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order. 2. Admittedly, the appellants entered into an agreement with HPL for :- (a) Manpower training deputed by the HPL at the appellant's factory. (b) Deputing manpower to HPL for demonstration/assistance in plant operation. 3. Revenue's contention was that these activities performed by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and that the HPL has rights to reduce or to require the removal of any person deputed by the appellant. The manpower deputed to HPL are required to participate in maintenance/demonstration/operation of the plant. In this context, Board's circular No. 79/9/2004-ST, dated 13-5-2004 clarifies as under : "The issue has been examined by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and in this regard, I am directed to say that the charges of erection, installation & commissioning are not covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Services. Commissioning or Installation service will be separately taxable under relevant entry and are not chargeable under Consulting Engineer Services. Accordingly, the clarification issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 18-12-2007] 4. Southern Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2008] 16 STT 1 (Chennai - CESTAT) 5. Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 10 STT 259 (Chennai - CESTAT) 6. Hari Machines Ltd. v. CCE&C [Final Order No. A-143/Kol./2007, dated 20-2-2007] 7. BPL Telecom (P.) Ltd. v. CC&CE [2007] 9 STT 387 (Bang. - CESTAT) 8. CCE v. Karnataka Conveyors & Systems (P.) Ltd. [2005] 2 STT 102 (Bang. - CESTAT) Training to persons cannot be covered under the definition of "Consulting Engineer" services 9. Micro Academy (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CST [2009] 22 STT 25 (Bang. - CESTAT) 9. The Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Ltd. (supra), while dealing with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....general words in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous." Considering the above points, we have no hesitation in holding the assessee's contention as seemingly sustainable. 11. In short, having taken a survey of the facts, evidences and various legal pronouncements, we observe that the deputation of manpower to HPL by the appellant cannot qualify as the service provided by 'Consulting Engineer'. Similarly, the activities undertaken by the appellant as per the agreement dated 28-10-1998, cannot be considered as 'advice', 'consultancy' and 'technical assistance' in nature. ....