1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.3/2004-ST dated 29-1-2004. The assessee were appointed as Consultant to M/s. Attappady Hills Area Development Society for the execution of their project namely, Attappady Wasteland Comprehensive Environmental Conservation Project in Attappady block of Palakkad District. It is an ECO Restoration Project implemented with the assistance of Overseas Economic Corporation Fund (Japan) and extended loan has been provided for execution of this project. For the purpose of carrying out the ECO development work in and around 500 Kms of wasteland, the assessee had engaged or used the services of project manager, hydrology expert, extension expert, structural engineer, ecological expert, social economist, agronomist and forestry expert. The department proceeded against the assessee for bringing their activity within the net of 'consulting engineering services' and confirmed the demand. The assessee took the stand that they were not carrying out any consulting engineering services but they were undertaking the project for reversing the land degradation and for putting wastelands in and around Attappady to use by the systematic management of soil, water and biomass with multilevel participation of the inhabitants of the region, especially tribals. They contended that their activity does not come within the definition of consulting engineering services or as a service provider. Based on the allegation of the show cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand which has been challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted he plea of the assessee that the works undertaken by the assessee do not come within the ambit of consulting engineering services. The Revenue has not agreed with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that their activities were specifically involved structural engineering, civil, mechanical, electrical or construction engineering of any nature and therefore, their activity has to be considered as one providing services as consulting engineering services in terms of Notification. This is seriously opposed by the learned Counsel and files written submissions.
He submits that the main activity of the assessee was ECO development works for bringing into wasteland to use by systematic management of soil, water and biomass with multilevel participation of the inhabitance of the region, especially tribals. He submits that this activity does not come within the ambit of service tax. He contested the grounds raised by the Revenue.
2. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we notice that the assessee has not carried out any activity of providing consulting engineering services to bring under the service tax net. The appellants were carrying out ECO conservation works to preserve the wasteland and bringing them into use, especially for the development of tribals. The said activity cannot be considered as activity coming within the ambit of consulting engineering services. Therefore the findings recorded by the Commissioner is legal and proper. There is no merit in the Revenue's appeal and the same is rejected.