JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.— The revenue is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT in Final Order No. 944/2006, dated 18-5-2006 by raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the CESTAT was legal and correct in holding that the activities undertaken by the respondent would not come within the ambit of Consulting Engineer Services? (2) Whether the observation of CESTAT that the respondent did not have professionally qualified engineers is legal and correct? (3) Whether CESTAT is legal and correct in their findings that the respondent did not provide advice, consultancy or technical assistance to the clients in one or more disciplines of engineering? (4) Whether CESTAT is right in holding that the ratio of the judgment in the Tata Consultancy Services v. Union of India is not applicable to the present case? 2. Undisputedly the present dispute revolves on the issue regarding whether the respondent authority would come within the ambit of Consulting Engineering Service under the Finance Act, 1994 or not. The respondent is a Central Government undertaking and as such the dispute between two wings of the Government or Department of the Government or between the Government and a Public Sector Undertaking is required to be adjudicated by the Committee of Disputes as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise, JT (1991) 4 SC 158. 3. After filing of this appeal the present appellant i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax has approached the Committee of Disputes in terms of ONGC's case by Reference Application No. 390/6/2007-LC on 12-4-2007. The Committee on consideration of the contentions raised by both the parties have held in its proceedings dated 5-12-2007 that order of the CESTAT in No. 944/2006, dated 18-5-2006 does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly has declined permission to Central Board of Excise and Customs to pursue the present appeal before this Court as no substantial question of law was involved. In view of the Committee of Disputes declining to interfere and permission having not been granted to the Appellant, to pursue the present appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.