BHATAWADEWKAR & CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. P -III/334/2005, dated 11 -10 -2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The appellant is an Engineer and is engaged in the profession of surveyor/loss assessor under Section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and undertakes work relating to survey and loss assessment. The Revenue was of the view that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the activity undertaken by him as a "Consulting Engineer" and accordingly held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax dues from 7 -7 -1997 onwards and also a penalty of Rs. 2000/ - was imposed.

(2.) THE ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue is already decided in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Institution of Valuers v. UOI - : 2012 (27) S.T.R. 113 (Guj.).

(3.) WE have perused the records, C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. , dated 30 -4 -2001 had examined the issue and had held that "the service provided by any qualified engineer in the area of insurance survey or loss assessment are not in the nature of services in an engineering discipline. Even as per the WTO classification of services, insurance survey and loss assessment is categorized as insurance auxiliary services and not as "Consulting Engineer Services". It was accordingly clarified that the term "Consulting Engineer" as defined in the Service Tax Act, will not include those qualified engineers who act as 'insurance surveyor and loss assessor' within its scope and therefore, service tax levy on the Consulting Engineer in any discipline of engineering will not cover the insurance survey and loss assessment services rendered by a qualified engineer. In the Institution of Valuers case (cited supra), the Hon'ble High Court held that services rendered by a valuer whether it be by engineer or any other person, is not in relation to advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any one or more disciplines of engineering and therefore, the services of Valuers is not liable to service tax as "Consulting Engineer". In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.