SHERWANI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of the arguments, the learned consultant for the appellant states that the appellant is prepared to deposit 50% of the service tax amount and the rest of the amount payable under the impugned order may be waived during the pendency of the appeal.

(2.) THE adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the services rendered by the appellant under the agreement, a copy of which is placed on record, came within the ambit of Clause 31 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 in the category of "Consulting Engineer", which 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.

(3.) IN the Order -in -Original, while holding that the appellant was providing services as "consulting engineer" under clause 31 of Section 65, no finding was given on the question whether the service also fell within the ambit of the definition of "management consultant" as alleged in the show cause notice.