Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vadodara-I vs. Jyoti Limited and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (24 Aug 2022)

When assessee is not rendering services as consulting engineer, he is not liable to pay the service tax

MANU/SC/1032/2022

Service Tax

The Revenue has preferred the present appeals dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeals preferred by the respondent assessee and set aside the demand of duty and penalty as per the Revisional Authority’s order.

The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax merely on the ground that services rendered by the assessee can be said to be services rendered as Consulting Engineer and therefore, liable to pay the service tax. However, considering the various services rendered by the assessee like erection/installation/commissioning of goods at customers’ site and incidentally they may also be providing the services of drawing, design etc., it cannot be said that the services rendered by the assessee was as a consulting engineer. The contract can be said to be ‘works contract’. Hence, the assessee cannot be said to be rendering the services as a consulting engineer and therefore liable to pay the service tax.

Therefore, once, the assessee at the relevant time cannot be said to be consulting engineer and/or rendering services as a consulting engineering the assessee is not liable to pay the service tax on the ‘works contract’ or the contract rendering services as consulting engineer for the period under consideration namely July, 1997 to December, 2000. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the Order¬-in-¬Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dropping the show cause notice and demand of service tax and penalty considering the nature of services rendered by the assessee. Present Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   DELETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved