JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM No. 14721/2012 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 14722/2012 (Delay)
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CEAC 28/2012 & CM No. 14720/2012 (Stay)
1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in ST/Appeal No. 418/2007 which arose out of the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur.
2. The only question which is sought to be raised in the present appeal is whether the definition of ‘Consulting Engineer’ as appeared in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 as applicable to the period 1997-2001, includes a ‘company’ or not.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the appellant, the respondent would be covered by the definition of ‘Consulting Engineer’ in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it existed at the relevant time. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, it would be appropriate if we set out the provisions of this Section; to the extent relevant, as it existed during the relevant time:
“Section 65. Definitions
In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(31). “consulting engineer” 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;
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”
4. It may be relevant to point out that the words “an engineering firm” appearing in the above definition, were substituted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.05.2006 with the words “any body corporate or any other firm”. It is, therefore, clear that the expression “any body corporate” was introduced with effect from 01.05.2006 But, in the present case, the relevant period is 1997-2001. At that point of time, the expression “any body corporate” was not included in the said definition of ‘consulting engineer’.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ought to be pressed into service. He submitted that the word ‘person’ includes any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. However, we fail to understand as to how the learned counsel for the appellant can place reliance on Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. That provision would only apply where the word ‘person’ is used in any Act or Regulation. The definition of ‘consulting engineer’ as provided in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it existed during the relevant period, did not employ the word ‘person’ at all. Consequently, the provisions of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would not apply.
6. From a reading of the impugned order, we find that the Karnataka High Court has also taken the view that the expression ‘consulting engineer’ as it appeared in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, at the relevant time (i.e prior to 01.05.2006), did not include “a private limited company or any other body corporate”.
7. In view of the foregoing, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
Comments