Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On the basis of the material on record, the adjudicating authority held that the consulting engineer services included advice, consultancy or technical assistance, feasibility study, pre-design services, basic design engineering, detailed engineering design, procurement, construction supervision and project management, supervision on commissioning and initial operation and power planning and training, post operation and management, trouble shooting and technical services etc. For this, the adjudicating authority relied on the circular dated 2.7.1997 and the clarification dated 18.12.2002 issued by the Board. It was noted that the appellant had, in paragraph 10.1 of their reply, disclosed that under the agreement, HALDOR TOPSOE had granted right to use technical data, information and know-how, for all purposes related to construction, maintenance, debottlenecking and operation of AONLA-I Energy Saving Project Phases I and II. From the wordings of the agreements analyzed by the adjudicating authority it was concluded that the appellant had clearly received engineering services including technical assistance in connection with its Energy Saving Project for their units from HALDOR TOPSOE Denmark through transfer of technology and that cannot be termed as "know-how" only. It was, therefore, held to be taxable under the category of consulting engineer services in view of the aforesaid Government circulars. The liability to pay service tax of Rs. 14,26,231/- was worked out on the basis of the admission made on behalf of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 4,22,64,128/- was paid to HALDOR TOPSOE by the appellant and that an amount of Rs. 19,54,899/- was paid as R&D cess under the R&D Cess Act, 1986 on account of transfer of technology and exemption was claimed by the assessee in respect of that amount from service tax under the Notification dated 01.12.2002 (No. 18/2002-ST). Besides ordering recovery of Rs. 14,26,231/-, a penalty of the like amount was imposed under Section 76 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed under Section 77 for failure to furnish the returns. The appellant was also directed to pay interest, under Section 75 of the Act.

7.1 The learned authorized representative for the department submitted that, under the notification dated 2.7.1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance, the scope of services of consulting engineer was indicated as per which, it included feasibility study, pre-design study/project report, basic design engineering, detailed design engineering, trouble-shooting and technical services including establishing systems and procedures for an existing plant etc. It was, therefore, submitted that since such services were provided to the appellant under the agreements in question, they attracted levy of service tax on the amounts paid by way of consideration for such services. Referring to the circular dated 18.12.2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance, it was submitted that the work of erection and commissioning of machineries and plants was one of providing technical assistance and, therefore, in the nature of taxable service provided by a consulting engineer. It was also submitted that the appellant had availed of the benefit of the Notification No. 18/2000 dated 16012.2000 issued by the Central Government under Section 93(1) of the said Act, on the footing that taxable services were provided to it by a consulting engineer on transfer of technology, thereby claiming exemption of the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Act to the extent to which the amount of cess was paid on such transfer of technology under Section 3 of the Research & Development Cess Act, 1986. The decision of this Tribunal in Nokia (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CC Delhi reported in 2006(1) STR 233(Tri.), was cited to point out that, the Tribunal observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the circular dated 2.7.1997 and the trade notice dated 4.7.1997 issued pursuant thereto, illustrated the wide scope and nature of the services provided by consulting engineer. It was submitted that the definition of "consulting engineer" was unambiguous and the technical assistance rendered for transferring "know-how" fell within the ambit of the said definition. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Natiki Devi v. Radha Devi (a rent control matter), it was argued that while interpreting a statute, attempt should be made to give effect to each and every expression used by the legislature and that the Courts should presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention was that every part of the statute should have effect.