Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (11) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (the Act). The impugned order affirmed the finding that IIQA registered as a provider of 'Technical Inspection and Certification' service' since 1-7-03 with the Trichy Central Excise Commissionerate, had rendered service of consulting engineer during the period April, 2000 to June, 2003. The original authority found that though the appellants were registered under the head Technical Inspection and Certification service since 1-7-03, they had rendered service of consulting engineer since 1999. He analyzed the activities undertaken by the appellants and found that IIQA rendered service of consulting engineer and not of Technical Inspection and Certification service. Hence, the demand under Engineering Consultancy, which has been affirmed in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-03 when the appellants registered with the department as a provider of service under the category Technical Inspection and Certification service. 3. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Cameo Corporation Services Ltd. v. CCE, (S.T.), Chennai, [2008] (11) S.T.R. 161 (Tri.-Chen.)] and Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. CCE (S.T.), Chennai, [2008] (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tri.-Chen.)], appellants have argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. The ratio of the above decisions was that when a new entry was introduced under the Act as a category of service exigible to tax, it was pre-supposed that those activities were not covered by any pre-existing entry. 4. Ld. JDR submits that all along IIQA had rendered only service classifiabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellants are listed by the original authority. More important of the observations are extracted below. On an analysis of these activities, the original authority came to the conclusion that the assessee is engaged in engineering consultancy. "(i) The services provided by IIQA are not mere inspection/witnessing of the work, but the work was performed using their technical expertise in their field. (iv) The services provided by IIQA are not any statutory inspection but only a 'third party inspection' (vii) The purpose of using the technical expertise of IIQA by various parties was clearly to maintain the prescribed quality parameters and further to improve the quality of their products. (viii) The order No. 1/1/2002-S.T., ....