Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Berkowits Hair & Skin Clinic vs Principal Commissioner, Central ... on 10 August, 2023
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50377 of 2021
WITH
SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 50806 OF 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 35/TPS/PC/CGST/DSC/2020-21 dated
18.11.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax and
Central Excise, New Delhi)
M/s Berkowits Hair & Skin Clinic Appellant
(Prop. Ms. Seema Goel)
VERSUS
Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Respondent
Excise, Delhi South Commissionerate
APPEARANCE:
Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative of the Department
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 30.06.2023
Date of Decision: 10.08.2023
FINAL ORDER NO.__51041___/2023
HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA
The present appeal has been filed by M/s Berkowits Hair and
Skin Clinic (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) to assail the
Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Principal
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central
2 ST/50377/2021
Excise, Delhi South Commissionerate in respect of the show cause
notice dated 25.06.2020 demanding service tax amount of
Rs.2,94,88,580/- for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017. Vide
the impugned order, the Commissioner held that activities such as
Alopecia injection, Autologus Micrograft Treatment, Hairloss
therapy, Mesotheraphy, Dermaroller sitting, Ozone & Laser
treatment, Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP), and Radio Frequency
Treatment undertaken by the appellant are all taxable under
cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery and not eligible for exemption
under Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. However, he
held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in
respect of all activities, other than Autologus Micrograft Treatment
and Radio Frequency Treatment as these activities were in the
knowledge of the Department owing to the audit of the appellant
for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. The demand on the remaining
two services viz., Autologus Micrograft Treatment and Radio
Frequency Treatment has been confirmed as these services were
not provided earlier during the period of audit. The present appeal
is only against the confirmation of demand on two services viz.,
Autologus Micrograft Treatment and Radio Frequency Treatment for
the extended period along with imposition of equal penalty.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing
services relating to diagnosis, treatment and care for various hair
and skin related diseases/illness, through its team of qualified
doctors and paramedics. A Show cause notice dated 26.06.2020
3 ST/50377/2021
was issued raising demand of service tax amounting to
Rs.2,94,88,580/-, with interest, for seven different services
provided by the appellant, alleging that the benefit of exemption
under Sr. No. 2(i) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated
20.06.2012, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the
"Notification"), is not admissible. By the impugned order, the
demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 55,88,412/- has been
confirmed, with interest, denying the benefit of exemption under
the Notification in respect of two services only, viz. (i) Autologus
Micrograft Treatment & (ii) Radio Frequency Treatment and
penalty, as stated above, has been imposed. The demand in
respect of the remaining five services has been dropped on the
ground of limitation. Though the appellant is not agreeable to the
findings of the learned Principal Commissioner holding these five
services to be covered under the category of 'cosmetic or plastic
surgery, thus, ineligible for the benefit of Notification, but since the
demand in respect of these services has been dropped, on the
ground of limitation, the appellant is not contesting these five
services in the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 2(i) of Notification No.
25/2012-ST is available to health care services provided by a
clinical establishment or authorised medical practitioner or para-
medics. The term 'clinical establishment' is defined in paragraph
2(j) of the Notification which reads as "clinical establishment
4 ST/50377/2021
hospital, nursing home, clinic, sanatorium, or any other institution
by, whatever name called, that offer services or facilities requiring
diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity,
abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicines in
India, or please established as an independent entity or a part of
an establishment carry out diagnostic or investigating services of
diseases;". The term 'health care services' is defined in paragraph
2(t) of the Notification. Learned Counsel contended that the
department is not justified in asserting that the services in
question are covered under the category of cosmetic or plastic
surgery, which are excluded from the purview of 'health care
services' as per the definition in paragraph 2(t) of the Notification.
With regard to the Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery, learned counsel
pointed out that CBEC (now CBIC), vide D.O.F. No. 334/13/2009-
TRU dated 06.07.2009, had clarified that as per common
definition, surgery is a medical technology consisting of physical
intervention on tissues and that as a general rule a procedure is
considered surgical when it involves cutting of a patient's tissues or
closure of a previously sustained wound. The impugned order also
relies on the said CBEC Circular.
4. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that cosmetic or
plastic surgery is excluded from the purview of the Notification.
The submission is that to be excluded from the benefit of
Notification, the treatment/procedure in question must be surgical
in nature. From the procedure of treatment given in the impugned
5 ST/50377/2021
order, it is evident that it does not involve any cutting of patient's
tissues or closure of a previously sustained wound. Therefore, in
terms of the CBEC Circular dated 06.07.2009 (cited supra), it does
not qualify to be considered as a surgical treatment and the finding
of the learned Principal Commissioner in the impugned order
holding it to be a type of surgery and consequent denial of the
benefit of Notification is unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the 'Autologus
Micrograft Treatment' is used to treat the disease Androgenetic
Alopecia and Telogen Effluvium, both male and female pattern
baldness. This treatment is provided under the guidance of
Doctors and Dermatologists to avoid the risk factor of other
diseases like prostate cancer, disorders of insulin resistance (such
as diabetes and obesity), and high blood pressure. In the following
cases, loss of hair/baldness (Alopecia) has been held to be a hair
related illness/disease:
(i) Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur1;
(ii) Himani Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow2;
(iii) CCE, Cochin Vs. Ashok Herbal Remedies (India)3;
(iv) Aswini Homeao Pharmacy Vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV4.,
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE & ST, Hyderabad
Vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy5
6. Therefore, the 'Autologus Micrograft Treatment' provided to
cure the diseases of Androgenetic Alopecia and Telogen Effluvium,
1 [2006 (196) ELT 3 (SC)]
2 [2011 (263) ELT 225 (All.)]
3 [2004 (168) ELT 482 (Tri.-Bang.)]
4 [2019 (367) ELT 478 (Tri.-Hyd.)]
5 [2023-TIOL-50 -SC-CX]
6 ST/50377/2021
i.e. thinning/loss of hair (baldness) is not cosmetic in nature,
hence, not excluded from the purview of the Notification.
7. The 'Radio Frequency Treatment' is used to treat lesions
associated with seborrheic keratosis, acanthosis nigricans
associated skin tags, dermatosis papulosa nigra and milia. These
lesions have a tendency to multiply and may also turn malignant.
This treatment involves use of radio waves to cut and coagulate
the lesion and prevent its recurrence. Therefore, this also is a
treatment to cure a disease and not primarily for enhancement of
physical appearance, thus, not cosmetic in nature. This is,
therefore, not excluded from the purview of the Notification. The
reply to show cause notice also provided details of various leading
hospitals who list these services NOT under 'Cosmetic & Plastic
Surgery Department' but under their 'Dermatology Department'.
8. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
Tribunal in the case of Mohak Hi-Tech Speciality Hospital Vs.
CCE & ST, Indore6 where Bariatric Surgery undertaken to restrict
the intake capacity of the patient was held to be not a cosmetic or
plastic surgery. This judgment was followed by the Tribunal,
Hyderabad in the case of Livelife Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT,
Hyderabad7. Therefore, the term 'cosmetic or plastic surgery' is
required to be construed as referring to only that treatment which
is surgical in nature, consequently, non-surgical treatment cannot
be denied the benefit of exemption under the notification. He
6 2021 (45) GSTL 149 (Tri.-Del)
7 2023-TIOL-390-CESTAT-HYD.
7 ST/50377/2021
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu
Sweets and Biscuits Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.,
Lucknow8. This judgment was followed by the CESTAT, New Delhi
recently in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Air),
Chennai-VII Vs. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.9.
9. The learned Authorised Representative stated that
Autologous Micrograft Treatment is used to treat Androgenetic
Alopecia andTelogen Effluvium, which is male and female pattern
baldness. Both genders share its causes, which are mainly genetic
inheritance, hormonal imbalance etc. He stated that Hair follicles
are complex structures that go through different biological stages
from an active growth stage (anagen phase), to an intermediate
remodelling stage (catagen phase),and then to a quiescent stage
(telogen phase). The manner of development of the disease of
androgenetic alopecia is characterized by a shortening of the
anagen phase and an increase in the amount of hair follicles that
remain in the telogen phase. Since the anagen phase determines
hair's length, the new hair in AGA is shorter, gradually minimizing
hair follicles until they disappear.As per Wikipedia, the Autologous
stem-cell transplantation (also called autogenous, autogenic, or
autogenic stem-cell transplantation and abbreviated auto-SCT) is
autologous transplantation of stem cells, i.e. transplantation in
which stem cells (undifferentiated cells from which other cell types
develop) are removed from a person, stored, and later given back
8 [2004 (178) ELT 48 (SC)]
9 [2023 (383) ELT 455 (Tri.-Del.)]
8 ST/50377/2021
to that same person.In view of the same, he submitted that the
activity of Autologus Micrograft Treatment is a type of surgery
which involves the physical intervention on tissues which comes
under the definition of "cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery" as
the same is done to enhance physical appearance of the person
and is very well taxable under service tax law.
10. With respect to the activity of Radio Frequency Treatment, he
stated that as per the appellant's brochure available on the
website, Radio Frequency process or non-surgical chemical cautery
or with electro cautery is used to eliminate Warts, Moles and
Freckles with no side effects or scarring. It is painless and the
number of sittings depends upon the size of lesion. In view of the
same, it is to be treated as a cosmetic surgery, and is excluded
from the scope of the notification.
11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the
learned Authorised Representative.
12. The short issue for consideration is whether the two
treatments viz., Autologous Micrograft Treatment and Radio
Frequency Treatment are eligible for the exemption contained in
Notification no. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012. In order to
understand the same, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant
portion of the said notification:-
Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated- 20th June, 2012, as
amended.
9 ST/50377/2021
"G.S.R. 467(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification number 12/2012-
Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number
G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17th March, 2012, the Central Government,
being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby
exempts the following taxable services from the whole of the
service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act,
namely:-
1. Services provided to the United Nations or a specified international
organization;
2.(i) Health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised
medical practitioner or para-medics;
............................................
2. Definitions. - For the purpose of this notification, unless the context otherwise requires, -
.....................................................................................................................
(j) "clinical establishment" means a hospital, nursing home, clinic, sanatorium or any other institution by, whatever name called, that offers services or facilities requiring diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicines in India, or a place established as an independent entity or a part of an establishment to carry out diagnostic or investigative services of diseases;
(t) "health care services" means any service by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicines in India and includes services by way of transportation of the patient to and from a clinical establishment, but does not include hair transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery, except when undertaken to restore or to reconstruct anatomy or functions of body affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, injury or trauma;
3. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2012."
10 ST/50377/2021 12.1 It will pertinent to reproduce the content of the letter issued by TRU consequent to the introduction of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2009 wherein new services were included in the list of taxable services. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinafter:-
Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax Research Unit ***** Gautam Bhattacharya Joint Secretary (TRU-II) Tel; 23093027 Fax: 23093037 e-mail: [email protected] D.O. F. No.334/13/2009-TRU New Delhi,6th July, 2009 Dear Chief Commissioner/ Director General/Commissioner, The Finance Minister has introduced the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009 in the Lok Sabha on the 6th of July, 2009. Clause 112 of the Finance (No 2) Bill, 2009 covers all the changes relating to Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. Changes are also being proposed in the provisions of the,-
xxxxx xxxxx
2. New Services included in the list of Taxable Services:
The following new services are proposed to be included in the list of taxable services. These services would get covered under the list of taxable services from a date to be notified after the enactment of Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2009.
xxxxx xxxxx 2.4 Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery service:
2.4.1 Beauty treatment service provided by saloons, beauty parlors and beauticians are taxable since 2002. The service now proposed to be 11 ST/50377/2021 taxed is cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery undertaken to preserve or enhance physical appearance or beauty. As per common definition, surgery is a medical technology consisting of a physical intervention on tissues. As a general rule, a procedure is considered surgical when it involves cutting of a patient's tissues or closure of a previously sustained wound. Commonly surgery is performed in a sterile environment with anesthesia and antiseptic conditions using surgical instruments. It also includes 'non-invasive' surgery.
2.4.2 Some of the commonly known aesthetic/cosmetic surgeries are abdominoplasty (tummy tuck); bletharoplasty (eyelid surgery);
mammoplasty; buttock augmentation and lift; rhinoplasty (reshaping of nose); otoplasty (ear surgery); Rhytidectomy (face lift); liposuction (removal of fat from the body); brow lift; cheek augmentation; facial implants; lip augmentation; forehead lift; cosmetic dental surgery; orthodontics; aesthetic dentistry; laser skin surfacing etc. 2.4.3 However, any reconstructive surgery undertaken to restore one's appearance, anatomy or bodily functions affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, degenerative diseases, injury or trauma would be outside the scope of this service. These processes could be undertaken to correct impairment caused by burns, fractures or congenital abnormalities like cleft lip etc....." 12.2 A conjoint reading of the notification reveals that the exemption is for healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment and authorised medical practitioner or paramedics. Healthcare services is a service whereby the diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicines in India and include services by way of transportation of the patient to and from a clinical establishment. But it specifically excludes hair transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery except when the same is undertaken to restore or reconstruct anatomy or functions of body affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, injury or trauma. It is pertinent to take cognizance of the clarification issued by TRU 12 ST/50377/2021 when the service tax was initially levied on cosmetic and plastic surgery. It is noted that the term surgery has been defined in medical technology as consisting of physical intervention on tissues. As a general rule it has defined surgery to involve cutting of patient's tissues or closure of previously sustained wound. It also includes non-invasive surgery.Non-invasive surgery procedures leave the skin intact or unbroken, meaning it does not require an incision or cutting of the skin. Rather it is usually performed by laser or using syringes.
12.3 It is in this prism of definitions, that we consider the two procedures undertaken by the appellant to be eligible for the exemption under the notification. Autologous micrograph treatment is used to treat male and female pattern baldness. This treatment involves the extraction of unspecialised cell from one's body that maintain and repair tissues. Skin micrographs are taken from behind the year with the help of a biopsy punch and a stem cell - like rich solution is made out of it and it is injected into the hair thinned areas of the scalp. It is noted that this therapy is a single session treatment and the process requires to be administered under local anaesthesia. It has been contended before us that this treatment is required to be carried out under the guidance of doctors and dermatologist to avoid risk factor of other diseases like prostate cancer, diabetes and hypertension. We find that Androgenetic Alopecia and/or Telogen effluvium can be caused by endocrine abnormalities, diabetes, stress and sometimes in 13 ST/50377/2021 patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. As per the magazine 'Cureas' available on the National Library of Medicine portal, published online 2023 Apr 11. in the article "Stem Cell Applications in Human Hair Growth: A Literature Review" by Arjavon T Talebzadeh and Nojan Talebzadeh has stated that "Medications such as some beta-blockers and antidepressant and chemotherapy could have secondary hair loss known as telogen effluvium as side effects. Illness such as hypothyroidism has also been associated with thinning hair, and certain dietary deficiency that may include zinc, iron, and biotin could also have same results. Autoimmune conditions such as alopecia areata (AA) have also been shown to lead to hair loss." What is clear from above is that the said treatment is not used to prevent or address any disease per se, rather it is to address the consequences of disease which can be Androgenetic Alopecia and/or Telogen effluvium. In this context we find that the Supreme Court in the case of Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2006(196) ELT 3(SC)] in paragraph 20 has held as follows:-
"20. It will be seen from the above definition of cosmetic that cosmetic products are meant to improve appearance of a person, that is the enhance beauty. Whereas a medicinal product or a medicament is meant to treat some medical condition. It may happen that while treating a particular medical problem, after the problem is cured, the appearance of the person concerned may improve. What is to be seen as the primary use of the product. To illustrate, a particular eye with the product may be used for treating baldness. Baldness is a medical problem. By use of the product if a person is able to grow hair on his head, his ailment of baldness is cured and the persons appearance may improve product used for the purpose cannot be termed as cosmetic simply because it has ultimately led to the improvement in appearance of the person. The
14 ST/50377/2021 primary role of the product was grow hair on his head and cure his baldness.
21. The extent of the quantity of medicament used in a particular product will also not be relevant factor. Normally the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. The medical ingredients are mixed with what is in trade parlance called fillers or vehicles in order to make the medicament useful to illustrate an example of Vicks Vaporub is given in which 98% said to be paraffin wax, while the medicinal part i.e., Menthol is 2%. Vicks VapoRub has been held to be a medicament by this court in CCE vs Richardson Hindustan Ltd(1989 (42) ELT A100). Therefore the fact that use of medicinal element in a product was minimal does not detract from it being classified as a medicament."
12.4 We find that the Tribunal in its decision in Aswini Homeo Pharmacy vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad [2019(367)ELT 478(Tri-Hyd)] has relied on Supreme Court decision and other Tribunal decision and held as follows:
"9. The above judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Tribunal clearly spells out that even though the goods are sold over-the-counter and not on a medical prescription, it would not lead to the goods being out of the category of medicine. adjudicating authority has held that since the hair growth is a cosmetic necessity and the product label shows lady with long hair the goods are cosmetic product. We are not in agreement with the above use of the adjudicating authority. Firstly when the different branches of medicine and the licensing authorities recognise baldness or hair fall as disease, in that case the adjudicating authority cannot take a different view it is not recognised by the branches of medicine.........................................."
13. From the above, it is apparent that the Autologous Micrograph Treatment undertaken by the appellant is to treat Androgenetic Alopecia and/or Telogen effluvium i.e. baldness which 15 ST/50377/2021 has been recognised to be an illness. Once Androgenetic Alopecia/Telogen Effluvium is recognised as illness, we hold that the same is covered by the definition of healthcare services given in 2(t) of the notification. Any improvement in appearance is not a consequence of such a treatment, as has been categorically held by the Supreme Court in Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (supra). It is pertinent to note that the Notification excludes Hair Transplant from its ambit, but in the instant case, there is no hair transplant as such. There is only injection of a stem cell -like rich solution into the thinning areas of the head. This does not involve any surgery or surgical procedure which involves cutting of a patient's tissues or closure of a previously sustained wound. Accordingly, we hold that the Autologous Micrograph Treatment is eligible for exemption under Notification 25/2012(supra).
14. We now address the second issue before us as to whether Radio Frequency Treatment is a cosmetic surgery or not. The Radio Frequency process is a non-surgical chemical cautery or with electro cautery, which is used to eliminate Warts, Moles and Freckles with no side effects or scarring. It is painless and the number of sittings depends upon the size of lesion. Warts, known in medical terminology as papillomas, may emerge anywhere on the body, depending on the specific strain of the virus (known as Human papillomavirus or HPV) that causes them to develop in the body. Viral warts are infectious to the patient and others. Moles are a common type of skin growth, and often appear as small, dark 16 ST/50377/2021 brown spots and are caused by clusters of pigment-forming cells (melanocytes). Freckles are small spots on the skin that range in colour from red to brown, and are commonly seen on sun-exposed areas, such as face, neck, etc. All these common skin conditions are not usually life threatening, and any procedure to remove such warts/moles or freckles is undertaken to enhance physical appearance or beauty. Therefore, their removal would clearly fall under the category of a cosmetic surgery.
15. We now come to the limitation issue. We note that the Commissioner has held that these two services were not hit by limitation as these were not undertaken by the appellant at the time of the audit for the financial year 2009-10 to 2013-14. This has been corroborated by the appellant vide their email dated 16.11.2020. The observations of the Commissioner is reproduced for clearer understanding:
"56.16. I have gone through the reply of the assessee vide their email dated 16.11.2020. The assessee has submitted that Autologous Micrograph Treatment and Radio Frequency Treatment were not provided during the earlier audit period FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14. Thus, I find that the provision of Autologous Micrograph Treatment and Radio Frequency Treatment services were not in the knowledge of the Department during the audit conducted by the Department for the period FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 and hence, the contention of the assessee/Noticee that Beauty Parlour/Beauty Treatment Services whereby the practice of treating the hair for disease as healthcare services was duly recognised and accepted by the Department and same were found to be exempted vide Notification Number 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and an Internal Audit Report(IAR) No. 260/2016-17 dated 10.08.2016 was issued to this effect is not correct in respect of provision of Autologous Micrograph Treatment and Radio Frequency Treatment services. In the era of self-assessment, where higher responsibility has been cast upon the assessee to pay his taxes correctly and voluntarily
17 ST/50377/2021 without interference by the departmental officers, the act of not declaring additional services such as autologous micrograph treatment and radiofrequency treatment with effect from 2014 - 15 and 2016 - 17 respectively and not paying taxes on them is an act of suppression with the intent to evade payment of duty".
16. From the above factual matrix, it is clear that the two treatments were not in the knowledge of the Department. It is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has dropped the demand of Rs. 2,39,00438/- on other services viz., Alopecia Injection, Hairloss therapy, Mesotherapy, Platelet Rich Plasma etc on the ground that these were recognised by the department in the Internal Audit Report (IAR) No. 260/2016-17 dated 10.08.2016, as these were undertaken by the appellant during the period of the last Audit. Hence, the invocation of the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 relating to Radio Frequency Treatment is justified and is upheld.
17. In view of the above, we set aside the demand relating to Autologous Micrograph Treatment and uphold the demand confirmed in respect of Radio Frequency Treatment. The penalty amount is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed partially and the order in original is modified to that extent.
(Pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2023 ) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (HEMAMBIKA R PRIYA ) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ss