Micro Academy (India) Private Vs. the Commissioner of Service Tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....therein. he submits that even the definition of 'consulting engineer' cannot bring into its ambit the activity of training as no expertise engineering advice is granted as required under the definition. he submits that the issue is covered in his favour.3. the learned jdr contests the submissions and points out that the activity carried out has to be brought within the category of 'consulting engineer' services as held by the lower authorities.4. we have considered the pleas. prima facie, the plea taken by the chartered accountant that their activity of giving training cannot be brought under the ambit of 'consulting engineer' is supported by large number of judgments including the judgment cited supra. all the citations have been produced in the paper-book. in view of these judgments, the stay application is allowed granting full waiver of pre-deposit and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal.as full waiver has been granted and the issue is covered, the appeal could be taken up for out of turn hearing. appeal to come up for final hearing on 27th november 2007.

Judgment:

1. The appellant is required to pre-deposit Rs. 15,84,711/- and penalty. The appellants were carrying on the activity of imparting training in software. Revenue has proceeded to consider the activity of giving training to come within the category of 'Consulting Engineer Services' and has confirmed the demands.

2. The learned Chartered Accountant submits that in a similar situation this Bench has allowed the appeal of Waters India (P) Ltd. v. CST as reported in 2006 (07) LCX 0245 wherein the activity of training the persons to utilize complicated and sophisticated machine system has been held to be not coming within the category of 'Consulting Engineer' services. He submits that this Bench has followed large number of judgments noted therein. He submits that even the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' cannot bring into its ambit the activity of training as no expertise engineering advice is granted as required under the definition. He submits that the issue is covered in his favour.

3. The learned JDR contests the submissions and points out that the activity carried out has to be brought within the category of 'Consulting Engineer' services as held by the lower authorities.

4. We have considered the pleas. Prima facie, the plea taken by the Chartered Accountant that their activity of giving training cannot be brought under the ambit of 'Consulting Engineer' is supported by large number of judgments including the judgment cited supra. All the citations have been produced in the paper-book. In view of these judgments, the stay application is allowed granting full waiver of pre-deposit and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal.

As full waiver has been granted and the issue is covered, the appeal could be taken up for out of turn hearing. Appeal to come up for final hearing on 27th November 2007.