NEERAJ SHARMA Vs. CCE, MEERUT-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL has been filed against Order -in -Appeal No. 222/CE/MRT -I/2008 dated 31.12.2008 which upheld the order in original dated 23.4.2008 in terms of which a service tax demand of Rs. 80,017/ - along with interest and penalty was confirmed under Consulting Engineer Service on the ground that the appellants had provided vaastu advice, blue print and project report typing and binding services. At the first appellate stage, the appellant contended that these activities are beyond the purview of service tax. But the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their contention primarily observing that the appellant's activities are well covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Service defined under Section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) THE appellant has contended that vaastu advice does not fall in the category of consulting engineer service as that is mythological in nature and that vaastu concept is only a belief in Hinduism and some people who have allegiance to the astrology like advice with regard to vaastu and that preparation of blue print is no where relating to consultation as blue print of house is work of tracer and not of an engineer. Preparation of project report, typing and binding also does not fall in the consulting engineer.

(3.) WE have considered the contentions of both sides. Under Section 65(105)(g) of the Finance Act 1994 the Consulting Engineer Service is defined as under: