9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medical practitioner or para medicals. The Appellant has come up with such contention only before us at the Appellate stage. Even from the treatment offered it does nowhere occurs that the same are physiotherapy services as the nature of services shown are for excessive weight or shoulder pain - The Appellant is not entitled to the exemption from payment of service tax under Notification and the service tax demand has been correctly made - penalties imposed are also upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/85363/2018 - A/86856/2018 - Dated:- 28-6-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajiv Luthia, C.A., for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on account of failure to submit information, whereas there has been delay of 942 days and the penalty should have been of ₹ 182,000/-. That penalty on disallowed cenvat credit of ₹ 3,83,973/- was imposable which has not been ordered by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of appeal filed by the Appellant partially allowed the same by setting aside the demand of ₹ 3,83,973/-. He also held that penalty u/s 77 (1) ( c) is not imposable. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in- appeal the Appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Rajiv Luthia, ld. CA appearing for the Appellant submits that they are rendering services which are related to Health problem and are mainly in the nature of correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has urged that they are rendering Health care services which are related to Health problem and are mainly in the nature of corrective as well as preventive of the probable diseases which occur due to the obesity and overweight of the patients. That the services are rendered under the direction of qualified physiotherapist. They also claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012 and has cited the judgment of M/s Manthena Satyanarana Charitable Trust Vs. UOI 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 213 (A.P.). I find that the reliance placed by the Appellant is erroneous as the Appellant either during investigation or in their submission before lower authorities has never adduced any evidence that the services are being rendered by an authorized medical pract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
