Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Feasibility study;
(ii) Pre-design services/project report;
(iii) Basic design engineering;
(iv) Detailed design engineering;
(v) Procurement;
(vi) Construction supervision and project management;
(vii) Supervision of Commissioning and initial operation;
(viii) Manpower planning and training;
(ix) Post-operation and management;
(x) Trouble shooting and technical services, including establishing systems and procedure for an existing plant.

He argued that in terms of Sr. No. 2(i) and 2(iv) of this list, the respondent activity is provision of Consulting Engineer Service. It has been argued in the grounds of appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) has fail to consider the admission made by Shri T. S. Selvan, Excise Officer of the assessee to the fact that they have provided services like Basic Design Engineering and Detailed Design Engineering to IOCL, Barauni. It has further argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Daelim Industries Company Ltd. It has been argued that the contract in the case of M/s. Daelim Industries Company Ltd, was a contract of turnkey basis and not a consultancy contract. It has been argued that while a contract of the kind examined in the case of M/s Daelim Industries Company Ltd cannot be vivisected, the contract in the respondent case provides separate value of the supply portion and for different services. It has also been argued that the decision of M/s Daelim Industries Company Ltd, is based on the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Associated Hotels of India Limited reported in 1972-1-SSC-472. It has been argued in the grounds of appeal that the said decision is not applicable to the extent case, as the same was given for context of the State Governments Powers to levy Sales Tax on the transfer of property in goods. It has also been argued that no finding on invocation has been given.

(i) Feasibility study;

(ii) Pre-design services/project report;

(iii) Basic design engineering;

(iv) Detailed design engineering;

(v) Procurement;

(vi) Construction supervision and project management;

(vii) Supervision of commissioning and initial operation;

(viii) Manpower planning and training;

(ix) Post-operation and management;

(x) Trouble shooting and technical services, including establishing systems and procedure for an existing plant.

It has been argued in the review order that in view of Sr. Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv), as above, all type of designs involved in a particular project, have to be considered as a part of Consulting Engineer's services. However it is seen that this circular does not deal with the services in the nature of works contract service where the Hon Apex court has held that no tax can be levied prior to introduction of works contract service. Moreover the appellants are not covered by definition of Consulting Engineer as has been held in the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I 2015 (39) STR 847 (Tri.Del.). In the said decision relying on place of decision of Honble High Court in the case of C.S.T. Bangalore vs. Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (18) STR 545 (Kar.) upheld by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd (supra).

4.3.1 It has been asserted in the review order that the Cornmlsstoner (Appeals) has not considered the findings of the adjudicating authority that Shri T.s.selvan, Excise Officer of the assessee in his statement dated 21-06-2002, recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 duly applicable to Service Tax matters in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, has specifically admitted the fact that they have provided services viz., basic design engineering and detailed design engineering to IOCL, Barauni in the present case and simply set aside the Order on the ground that activities carried out are similar to the case of M/s. Daelim. Therefore, setting aside of the service tax amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- on the taxable value of Rs.75,00,000/- provided towards designing and drawing by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and legal. In view of the fact that appellants are not are not covered by definition of Consulting Engineer no tax can be levied under said service.