9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Neha Gulati, Advocate Appeared for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR Per S.S. Kang: Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax of Rs.63,17,721/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed. The demand is confirmed by treating the appellant as proprietor of Consultancy Engineer Services. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineering firm who could be Consulting Engineer and not a body corporate The appellant is a private limited company and it is only w.e.f. 1.5.06 after only the amendment to include such limited companies, they would be liable to service tax as 'Consulting Engineer'. The appellant relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Karantaka High Court in the case of CST Bangalore Vs Toyoda Iron Works Co Ltd r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Tata Consultancy Services which is decision of a Single Bench whereas the respondent relied upon two other cases of the same High Court of Division Bench of later dates in support of their claim. 7. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after taking into consideration the amendment made vide Finance Act 2006, held in two decisions that prior to 1.5.06, limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
