9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices . This finding of the Commissioner has not been disputed in the appeal by the Revenue. After concluding that the respondent has not provided event management services , the Principal Commissioner has examined the taxability under the head healthcare services and came to the conclusion that they were exempted by virtue of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Revenue s contention is that the respondent does not qualify for the exemption under this notification because it is neither a clinical establishment nor an authorized medical practitioner nor a para-medic and the exemption has not covered all services rendered in relation to healthcare services but specifically the healthcare services provided by the aforesaid thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a demand of Rs. 28,728/- out of Rs. 60,49,457/- demanded in the show cause notice and dropped the remaining. 2. We have heard learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The respondent is a private firm engaged in providing services. The services in dispute in this case are the provision of Medical Mobile Unit (MMU) to M/s Jagran Solutions, Indore. M/s Jagran Solutions were awarded a contract by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to provide MMUs who, in turn, obtained these MMUs from the respondent. It is undisputed that the MMUs were provided by the respondent on behalf of M/s Jagran Solutions to various locations. The MMU is essentially Mobile Hospital/Clinic in the form of a van along with personnel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the healthcare services ; (ii) The notification also does not refer to services rendered in relation to .. Therefore, the notification cannot be extended to anybody other than the three categories of service providers namely clinical establishments, Authorized Medical Practitioners or para-medics. The respondent is none of the three and this fact is not in dispute. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the above grounds of appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has pointed out that the benefit of the notification was correctly given to the respondent. He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lishment nor an authorized medical practitioner nor a para-medic and the exemption has not covered all services rendered in relation to healthcare services but specifically the healthcare services provided by the aforesaid three noticees/persons. Since an exemption notification must be strictly construed against the person who claims it, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. We, however, find that the tax liability under healthcare services cannot be fastened on the respondent at all because no notice has even been served upon the respondent under this head. The respondent was put to notice asking as to why a demand cannot be made under the head event management services . No service tax can be levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
