TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice provided under the category of "Consulting Engineer". However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that the appellant is a sub-consultant of M/s. Chandravarkar and Thackar (P) Ltd. 2. We have perused the records arid the Memorandum of Understanding for consultancy service agreement and noticed that the appellant is a sub- consultant of M/s. Chandravarkar and Thackar (P) Ltd. The only issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Mathen v. CCE [1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 (S.C.)]. The learned Counsel pointed out to the tabulated details showing fees along with Service tax paid by M/s. Chandavarkar & Thacker Architects Pvt Ltd. and submits that these details had been furnished to the Original authority but he has incorrectly noted that they have not produced the same. He submits that if the said details were considered then ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Chandravarkar & Thackar (P) Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the Board's Circular and Trade Notices which clearly laid down that the sub-contractor/sub consultant is not required to discharge Service tax as the main consultant discharged the same. The appellants have placed evidence but the original authority has noted that the same has not been produced. In view of this position....