2008 (6) TMI 8 - AT - Service Tax

Demand has been confirmed in respect of consulting engineering service real estate agent & clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent - applicants received fabrication charges & rehabilitation charges so he cannot be held to be a consulting engineer - plea by the appellant that the service was provided prior to introduction of Real Estate Agent Service was not raised before the lower authority therefore it requires re-consideration - matter requires re-consideration in all issues

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against demand of service tax for consulting engineering service, real estate agent service, and clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent service.

Consulting Engineering Service: The appellant contested the demand, arguing they were not professionally qualified engineers or an engineering firm. They claimed the charges for fabrication, supervision for quality maintenance, and pipeline rehabilitation did not constitute consulting engineer services. The Revenue argued that as the appellant provided consulting engineering services through advice, consultancy, and technical assistance, the demand was valid. The Tribunal found that the appellant's manufacturing status did not preclude them from being considered professionally qualified engineers. The matter was remanded for the adjudicating authority to re-evaluate based on the terms of the agreements.

Real Estate Agent Service: The appellant contended that the service was provided before real estate agent services were taxable, even though the consideration was received post-tax introduction. The Revenue argued that as the appellant provided real estate agent services, they were liable for tax. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's plea was not raised before the lower authorities, necessitating reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) Agent Service: The appellant argued that they acted as commission agents, not C&F agents, citing a Tribunal decision overruling their case precedent. The Tribunal noted the need for reconsideration due to the conflicting Tribunal decisions and directed the adjudicating authority to review the terms of each agreement.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.