9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entres the appellant is not providing any health service. It is merely collecting money on behalf of the diagnostic centres for providing them the number of patients. Hence, the share of revenue so collected in the hands of the appellant cannot be categorized as a consideration for rendering the health service to the patients - there is no role of the appellant for providing diagnostic health services to the patients except retaining revenue share on that pretext - considerations received undoubtedly is for such activities as are enumerated in the definition of the BSS - Demand under BSS upheld. Management Maintenance & Repair Services - Held that:- As apparent, the agreement of the appellant with the FCs is to provide basic amenities as water, electricity, air-conditioning, power back-up etc. It is also apparent that appellant while allowing the FCs to operate in its premises, it charges a fixed amount and also receives a fixed percentage from the sale of these FCs. The activity is opined to not to fall under definition of MMR in Section 65 (64) of the Act - the demand of service tax as levied vide SCN dated 30.01.2015 for rendering Management, Maintenance & Repair Services is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... centres, namely, M/s. Bakshi Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. (CT Scan), M/s. North Health Care (MRI), M/s. Mahajan Imaging (PET-CT Scan and Nuclear Medicine). All the said diagnostic centres have installed their equipments in the premises of the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax for an amount of ₹ 1,61,13,033/- as detailed in the show cause notice for rendering the above mentioned service to these diagnostic centres. The said demand has been confirmed by the order under challenge. Resultantly, the appeal in hand has been filed. 2. We have heard Mr. B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ranjan Khanna, ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant is engaged in providing health services to the public at large. For the purpose they have 3 kind of arrangements first, with the Doctors who are on the pay roles, another with the visiting Doctors, with whom they share the monthly revenue to the extent of variable percentage, which may vary to the maximum rate of 90% to be given to the said Doctors. The third arrangement is with the diagnostic centres and the same is also on revenue shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding any diagnosis services to these patients, which in-fact are provided by the said diagnostic centres. Finally, justifying the order under challenge ld. DR has prayed for the appeal to be rejected. 6. After hearing both the parties our observations and considered opinion are as follows:- 7. It is apparent from record and is an admitted fact also that with three of the diagnostic centres the appellant has entered into separate agreements. The relevant extract has been mentioned in the show cause notice. The perusal thereof shows that the diagnostic centres are allowed by the appellant to install and operate their equipments in the space provided by the appellant within the Hospital premises with the condition and they shall be creating necessary infrastructure at their own cost as is required specifically for their equipment. It was also agreed by them that they shall be reimbursing the appellant for all expenses incurred in respect of electricity and water used by them on actual basis against the demands raised by the appellant. It is the appellant who shall be employing its own staff for billing and receiving the payment at such rate as to be decided by the appellant. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by them but to be provided by the diagnostic centres in the appellants premises. Though the appellant herein has relied upon the fact that the health services are exempted from the Tax Net and diagnosis is included as the part of the health services, but the fact remains is that in the given arrangements/agreements with the diagnostic centres the appellant is not providing any health service. It is merely collecting money on behalf of the diagnostic centres for providing them the number of patients. Hence, the share of revenue so collected in the hands of the appellant cannot be categorized as a consideration for rendering the health service to the patients. The Department emphasis upon the copies of various scan reports on the appeal memo clarifies the picture that the scan /diagnosis is done by the diagnostic centre. The observations therein are prepared by the Doctors on the pay role of the diagnostic centres. Hence, there is no role of the appellant for providing diagnostic health services to the patients except retaining revenue share on that pretext. The same cannot be allowed to fall under the said exemption limit. On the contrary, the said revenue is apparently an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctricity, air-conditioning, power back-up etc. It is also apparent that appellant while allowing the FCs to operate in its premises, it charges a fixed amount and also receives a fixed percentage from the sale of these FCs. The activity is opined to not to fall under definition of MMR in Section 65 (64) of the Act. It is rather an admitted fact that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the appellant is discharging his liability as Renting of Immovable Property Services qua the consideration received from these FC s. The case law as relied upon by the appellant i.e. Aravali Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016 (18) TMI 675 (Tr.-Del.) is held to be applicable to the facts of this case. In view of above discussion, the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,84,913/- as levied vide SCN dated 30.01.2015 for rendering Management, Maintenance Repair Services (MMR) is hereby set aside. The order under challenge is held not sustainable, hence, is set aside to this extent. 13. The remaining findings qua imposition of interest and the penalties are held to have no infirmity as the appellant is a big health service provider and cannot be presumed to be ignorant of law nor is so permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
