ROOTS INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against a demand of Service tax on amounts collected by the appellants from their customers as charges for calibration of measuring instruments. The period of dispute is 7 -7 -1997 to 28 -2 -2002. The relevant show -cause notice demanded tax treating the above service as Engineering Consultancy Service. The assessee argued that it calibration of measuring instruments was purely a scientific activity and not an engineering activity. The original authority held thus:

(2.) HEARD both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that calibration of measuring instrument is covered by "technical inspection and certification" which became a taxable service with effect from 1 -7 -2003 only and that the appellants obtained registration certificate from the department in respect of this service only in August, 2003. Prior to 2003, this service was not taxable, nor was it covered by Engineering Consultancy Service. According to ld. Counsel only intangible services such as advice, consultancy etc. could be taxed as Engineering Consultancy Service. The service rendered by the appellants viz. calibration of measuring instrument was a tangible service and the same did not attract the definition of "consulting engineer" or "Engineering Consultancy Service." Moreover, it was not the department's case that the calibration of instrument was done by engineers. The findings and observations made by the original authority are based on its own personal notions rather than on a positive evidence. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays for vacating the demand of Service tax for the period of dispute. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the appellants have not shown that the activity in question was performed by the somebody other than engineer. It is argued that calibration of measuring instruments is an area of Engineering and the same requires to be treated is coming within the scope of Engineering Consultancy service. After considering the submissions, I find that the show cause notice issued by the department correctly describes the subject activity thus : -

(3.) IN the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.