M/S Nokia India Pvt. Limited vs Cst, New Delhi
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 263 of 2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Prior to 01.05.2006, the statutory definition of "consulting engineer" under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 extended only to a professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm, and did not extend to a body corporate; a body corporate therefore could not be subjected to service tax under the consulting engineer category for the period before that date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Service Tax Appeal No. 263 of 2009
(Arising out of order-in-original No. 82/VKG/2008 dated 21.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi).
M/s Nokia India Pvt. Limited Appellant
Vs.
CST, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Sh. Anupam Mishra & Sh. Kishore Kunal, Advocates for the appellant-assessee
Sh. Amresh Jain, DR for the Revenue
Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 53098 / 2015
Per: R. K. Singh:
Appeal has been filed against order-in-original dated 21.12.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.2,68,78,068/- was confirmed under the category of Consulting Engineer Service. The period involved in this case is 01.01.2001 to 30.06.2003. It has been contended by the appellant that Delhi High Court in the case of CCE&ST vs. Simplex Infrastructure & Foundry Works 2013-TIOL-441-HC held that the definition of Consulting Engineer Service at the material time included only individuals and firm and the words any body corporate was inserted in the definition only w.e.f. 01.05.2006 and therefore there was no error in the order of the Tribunal setting aside the demand under Consulting Engineer Service - Section 65 (31) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 105 (105) (g) of the Finance Act, 1994 against the assessee which was a private limited company. In the present case, it is evident that the appellant is a body corporate and not a firm. Prior to 01.05.2006 the definition of Consulting Engineer was as under:
65(31) consulting engineer means any professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm who, either directly or indirectly, renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to a client in one or more disciplines of engineering.
W.e.f. 01.05.2006 the definition of Consulting Engineer was changed to include even body corporates and read as under:
consulting engineer means any professionally qualified engineer or any body corporate or any other firm who, either directly or indirectly, renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to any person in one or more disciplines of engineering.
As the period involved in the present case is January 2001 to June 2003 and the appellant is a body corporate, it was not covered under the definition of Consulting Engineer during the relevant period. Therefore, the impugned demand is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R. K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
Pant
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free