1. Stay Order No. 68/2006 DT. 19/1/2006. The appellants, M/s. Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd., are manufacturers of weaving machines, accessories and spares. In this appeal, they are challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.6.04. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the activity of attending for servicing weaving looms in client's premises would fall under the purview of Consulting Engineer.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants states that they have rendered no advice, no consultancy and no technical assistance. The service rendered by them to their clients is limited in the sense that it involves attending to the looms installed in the client's premises which may or may not involve repairing/replacements. In other words, he contends that the service rendered to their clients would amount to repairs and maintenance service which has come to be a specified service for service tax purpose only w.e.f. 1.7.03 and hence not in the period relevant to the present case, which is September, 2002. To support his view point, he relies upon this Tribunal's order in the case of Roots Multiclean Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore in which this Bench has acknowledged that repairs and maintenance services are specified for service tax purpose with effect from 1.7.2003 observing strong prima facie merit in contention of appellants that above said services cannot be treated as engineering consultancy services for service tax purpose prior to 1.7.2003". Hence in this case, predeposit was waived and recovery stayed. In yet another case CCE, Meerut v. Jain Steel the Principal Bench has held that "respondent-firm not consisting of any professionally qualified persons so as to bring within scope of an engineering firm within the meaning of Section 65 (13) of Finance Act, 1994".
3. Ld. SDR for the Revenue relies upon the Board's Circular F. No.B43/5/97-TRU dated 2.7.97, according to which the trouble shooting and technical services, including establishing systems and procedures for an existing plant has been included as one of the category of services provided by a consulting engineer. He therefore points out that the services rendered by the appellants clearly fall within the ambit of service tax in the material time.
4. I have examined the case records and heard both sides. It is relevant to note how the services rendered by the appellants are described in their own documents.
For instance, their debit note dated 23.10.02 gives the particulars as "Being service charges to attend to your 28 Nos. Weaving Machines as per your Order No. C/12201168 dated 5.9.02." In their Purchase Order they indicate their services as Looms servicing.
5. Prom this it is clear that prima facie they impart certain services which can be reasonably interpreted as "technical assistance" as these services appear to be technical in nature.) However, Ld. Counsel for the appellants is confident of producing adequate material to show that what they render cannot come under the category "technical assistance" as per the definition of the term "consulting engineer". (Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the appellant to deposit a sum equivalent to 50% of the service tax demanded from them in the impugned order within 8 weeks from today. On such predeposit, the balance amount of demanded would stand waived and recovery stayed. If the said amount is not deposited within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be liable for dismissal in terms of Rule 35F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. To come up for reporting compliance on 7.4.06.