Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research ... vs Service Tax-Ii, Kolkata on 30 June, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 75982 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 59/COMMR/ST-II/KOL/2015-16 dated
29.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kendriya Utpad Shulk
Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s. Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research : Appellant
Centre Limited
360, Panchasayar,
Kolkata - 700 094
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax-II : Respondent
Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
WITH
Service Tax Appeal No. 76858 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 60/S.Tax-II/KOL/2018 dated 16.02.2018 passed
by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.X. (Appeal-I), Kolkata, G.S.T. Bhawan, 8th Floor,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s. Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research : Appellant
Centre Limited
360, Panchasayar,
Kolkata - 700 094
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax-II : Respondent
Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
AND
Service Tax Appeal No. 75494 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 78/KOL-SOUTH/2021 dated 31.03.2021 passed
by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.X. (Appeal-I), Kolkata, G.S.T. Bhawan, 180,
Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s. Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research : Appellant
Centre Limited
360, Panchasayar,
Kolkata - 700 094
VERSUS
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent
Kolkata South Commissionerate
G.S.T. Bhawan,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
Page 2 of 20
Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018
& ST/75494/2021-DB
APPEARANCE:
Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate,
Shri Agnibesh Sengupta, Advocate,
Shri Indranil Banerjee, Advocate,
For the Appellant
Shri Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative,
For the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 76986-76988 / 2025
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 30.06.2025
ORDER:[PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL] The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein demands of Service Tax, along with interest, and penalties have been confirmed against them covering the periods October 2008 to March 2013, October 2013 to March 2014 and April 2015 to June 2017.
1.1. Common issues being involved in all these appeals, they are taken up for disposal together by way of a common order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant runs a clinical establishment providing health care services at Panchasayar, Kolkata, West Bengal. Neurosciences Foundation is a charitable organization. The appellant and Neurosciences Foundation, as a joint project, formed a non-profit organisation "National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta" ("NNC" for short), with the objective of providing a centre of excellence in neurosciences for the benefit of the public at large. NNC was registered as a society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. NNC's Memorandum of Association provided that its income Page 3 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB and properties shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the society and no portion thereof shall be paid or divided amongst any of its members by way of profits. NNC was also registered as a charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its income was not charged to income tax.
3. In terms of the agreement dated November 29, 2007, representatives of both the appellant and Neurosciences Foundation were equally involved in the management of NNC. NNC functioned at the hospital premises of the appellant and used its infrastructure like beds, operation theatres, etc. as also staff like nurses, sevikas, technicians and other non-medical staff essential for health care services in the field of neuroscience. The agreement provided, inter alia, that NNC would reimburse the appellant bed charges after deducting 10%, 10% of OT charges including fixed charge for consumables and 5% of ITU bed charges billed by NNC as also salaries of nurses, sevikas, technicians and other non-medical staff.
3.1. Under a bona fide mistake of law, from July 2010, the appellant obtained registration and started paying service tax on the amount reimbursed by NNC for the nurses, sevikas, technicians, etc. as if it was providing manpower recruitment or supply service. Upon realisation of its mistake, the appellant discontinued the payment of service tax on such amount from April 2014 onwards.
4. The Revenue is of the view that the appellant has failed to discharge their Service Tax liability inter alia under the categories of "business support service"
and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service". Accordingly, proceedings were initiated Page 4 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB against the appellant by way of issuance of various Show Cause Notices covering the period from 2008- 09 to 2016-17.
5. After due process of law, the demands were confirmed against the appellant by way of the impugned orders, under the category of "business support service" holding that the appellant has provided its hospital infrastructure to NNC and under the category of "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" by holding that the appellant has providing nurses, sevikas, technicians, etc., to NNC. Apart from the above, demands have also been confirmed in respect of other categories such as, inter alia, "renting of immovable property service" and "works contract service".
5.1. Against the said orders, the appellant is before us.
6. The Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made various submissions, which are summarized below: -
Demands under "business support service" and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" are not sustainable:
(i) Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST which granted complete exemption read as under:-
"2. Health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or para-medics;"
(ii) The said notification contained definitions of "clinical establishment" and "healthcare services" which read as follows: -
Page 5 of 20Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB "(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;"
(iii) Serial No.2 of the notification granted exemption in respect of "healthcare services by a clinical establishment". The notification ensured that medical treatment did not become costlier because of service tax.
(iv) There can be no dispute that the patients were admitted in the appellant's hospital, which is a clinical establishment, and were provided healthcare services by using the hospital infrastructure and staff. The hospital infrastructure and staff were integral to the medical treatment, without which treatment would not have been possible. Health care services having been provided by the appellant's clinical establishment were exempt under the said notification. That such services Page 6 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB to patients at the appellant's clinical establishment were provided through NNC, a joint venture undertaking of the appellant and Neurosciences Foundation and managed by them jointly, which billed the patients and reimbursed to the appellant its cost for such services, did not in any way affect the appellant's entitlement to the exemption. It is submitted that having regard to the clear language of the exemption provision, the organizational set up under which a clinical establishment renders health care services is of no consequence.
(v) If service tax were to be charged from the appellant, the appellant would recover it from NNC, which in turn would recover it from the patients. The end result would be that medical treatment would become costlier on account of service tax, thereby defeating the object of the exemption notification. The view taken in the orders impugned by the appellant in its appeals is contrary to the express terms of the notification and would also defeat its object that medical treatment should not become costlier due to service tax.
(vi) There is another reason why use of the appellant's hospital infrastructure by NNC cannot be treated as a business support service. Clause (104c) of section 65 defines "support services of business or commerce" as follows:-
"(104c) "support services of business of commerce" means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and Page 7 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, operational or administrative assistance in any manner, formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction processing.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, the expression "infrastructural support services" includes providing office along with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel to handle messages, secretarial services, internet and telecom facilities, pantry and security;".
(emphasis added)
(vii) In order to fall within the above definition, the infrastructural support service must be "in relation to business or commerce". Admittedly, NNC is a non-profit making organisation. It is registered as a society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and as a charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. NNC's memorandum of association stipulates that its income and properties shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the society and no part thereof shall be paid or divided amongst any of its members by way of profits. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that NNC was carrying on any business or commerce or that by allowing use of its hospital infrastructure the appellant rendered any service in relation to business or commerce. It has been held by this Tribunal in several cases that where the recipient is a non-profit making organisation Page 8 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB and is not involved in any business or commerce, any service rendered to such institution will not fall under business support service.
(viii) For the reasons aforesaid, it is contended that no part of the demand for tax, interest and penalty under business support service or manpower recruitment or supply agency service is sustainable.
6.1. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the appellant also made further submissions in respect of the other issues as involved in the Appeal No. ST/75982/2016, which are as under: -
Renting of immovable property service - October 2008 to March 2013:
(i) The appellant permitted M/s. Coffee Day Express and M/s. Fresh and Honest Café Ltd. to supply food and beverages to patients and visitors at the hospital against payment of 20% of the monthly sale proceeds. Food and beverages were to be supplied to the appellant's employees, its contractors' employees and doctors working in the hospital at lower rates and no part of the sale proceeds received from them were to be shared with the appellant.
Because it was a case of revenue sharing and the agreements provided that no landlord- tenant relationship was created, the appellant was under the bona fide belief that there was no liability for service tax under renting of immovable property service. When the issue was raised in course of audit and service tax was demanded, the appellant reconsidered the matter, agreed with the audit view and paid Page 9 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB service tax of Rs.1,30,020 with interest of Rs.63,646 before issue of Show Cause Notice and intimated payment by its letter dated March 24, 2014. Of course, the appellant did not pay any service tax on account of the concession extended by the vendors to its employees, its contractors' employees and doctors.
(ii) Notwithstanding such payment, by the Show Cause Notice dated April 21, 2014, service tax of Rs.3,36,295 was demanded for the period from October 2008 to March 2013. The appellant pointed out that it had paid service tax of Rs.1,30,020 with interest of Rs.63,646 with reference to 20% sale proceeds received by it from the vendors and had no further liability in the matter. The appellant contended that no service tax was payable on the concession granted by the vendors to its employees, its contractors' employees and doctors. The appellant further disputed computation of the demand as arbitrary and without any basis. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the entire demand of Rs.3,36,295 made in the show cause notice without justifying the quantum of demand.
(iii) It is submitted that benefit of the concessional price charged by the vendors from the appellant's employees, its contractors' employees and doctors was enjoyed by the said persons and did not constitute any part of the consideration for renting of immovable property service provided by the appellant. It is not the case that the appellant paid any lower remuneration to such employees or contractors or doctors because of the concession extended to them by the vendors. The appellant was Page 10 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB under no obligation to pay any additional amount to any such employee or contractor or doctor if the vendors did not provide then the concession. The Ld. Commissioner should have accepted the appellant's service tax payment of Rs.1,30,020 with interest with reference to 20% sale proceeds and dropped the rest of the demand of Rs.2,06,275 under renting of immovable property service.
Works Contract Service:
(i) The audit team found that the appellant had made addition to its buildings and also incurred expenses for repairs and maintenance of buildings and sought to demand service tax of Rs.4,17,329 on works contract service on reverse charge basis. The appellant realised that unaware of the obligation to pay tax on reverse charge basis, it had bona fidely omitted to pay service tax in respect of works contract service. As such, the appellant paid tax of Rs.3,45,268, with interest of Rs.68,209, before issue of the show cause notice and intimated such payment to the Department. In the Show Cause Notice, however, service tax of Rs.4,60,230 was demanded under works contract service. The appellant in its reply pointed out computational errors and stated that it had paid applicable service tax of Rs.3,45,268 with interest of Rs.68,209 and that the rest of the transactions involving payment of Rs.27,07,925.54 were for purchase of goods on which no service tax was payable. The Ld. Commissioner corrected the computational error and arrived at a figure of Rs.3,77,267 Page 11 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB which he confirmed. The appellant's contention that Rs.27,07,925.54 was towards purchase of goods was rejected on the purported ground that there was no evidence that the bills submitted by the appellant were included in computing the demand.
(ii) The dispute is only with regard to the sum of Rs.31,999 demanded in respect of transactions of Rs. 27,07,925.54 relating to purchase of goods on the assumption that the same were works contract. It is submitted that the audit team had picked up the figures of additions and repairs and maintenance to buildings from the appellant's accounts and the purchase bills submitted by the appellant formed part of the figures picked up by the audit team which were subsequently incorporated in the show cause notice. Such position was easily verifiable but the Commissioner was not minded to have the verification conducted. Remand for the purpose of verification would prolong the litigation, which has already been continuing for long. In order to avoid further protracted litigation and buy peace, the appellant would like to make payment of the said sum of Rs.31,999. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the appellant should not be subjected to any penalty because it would pay the amount only to buy peace and avoid further litigation.
Aspects of limitation and imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994: -
(i) The Ld. Commissioner sought to impose penalty of Rs. 1,65,29,645 under section 78 on the Page 12 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB ground that the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed under section 77 for not obtaining registration at the appropriate time. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the instant case, it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to evade payment of service tax or that it withheld any fact from the Department with such intention. The appellant did not obtain registration or pay service tax under the bona fide belief that it was not so liable. The longer period of limitation could not have been evoked and the show cause notice dated April 21, 2014 was barred for the period up to March 31, 2012.
(ii) As submitted hereinbefore, the entire demand of Rs. 1,57,73,182 under business support service and manpower recruitment or supply agency service is ex facie not sustainable and there can be no penalty with reference to the same.
(iii) The balance demand of Rs.2,06,275 under renting of immovable property service and Rs.31,999 under works contract service is also legally not sustainable and there can be no penalty with reference to the same.
(iv) When the audit team raised several issues, the appellant examined the matter and paid an aggregate sum of Rs.5,10,908 as service tax under renting of immovable property service on 20% of the sale proceeds of food and beverages, rent-a-cab service, and works contract service with interest of Rs.1,39,170 before issue of the show cause notice and Page 13 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB intimated such payment to the department. The appellant had not paid service tax under renting of immovable property service because of the bona fide belief that it was a revenue sharing arrangement not involving a landlord-tenant relationship. Tax under rent-a-cab service and works contract service was not paid due to bona fide omission because the appellant was unaware of the obligation to pay tax on reverse charge basis and not with any intention to evade tax. In terms of section 73(3) of the Act, no show cause notice ought to have been issued in respect of service tax of Rs.5,10,908 paid by the appellant with interest under intimation to the Department before issue of the show cause notice. In terms of Explanation 2 to section 73(3) no penalty under any provision should have been imposed upon the appellant in respect of the said payment. Sub-section (4) of section 73 did not stand in the way of the application of sub-section (3) of section 73 in the facts and circumstances of the instant case since the purported finding of suppression with intention to evade tax is wholly unfounded.
(v) The short fall in payment of tax under rent-a-
cab service of Rs. 7,281 was paid by the appellant with interest of Rs.5,776 and 25% penalty of Rs.1822 on April 20, 2016 within 30 days of receipt of the Order-in-Original on March 21, 2016.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned orders.
Page 14 of 20Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB
8. Heard the parties and considered their submissions.
9. After hearing the parties, we find that the following issues emerge: -
(1) Whether the demands of Service Tax under the categories of "business support service" and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" are sustainable or not. (2) Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" or not.
10. From the facts, it is clear that the appellant runs a clinical establishment providing healthcare services and Neurosciences Foundation is a charitable organization. The appellant and Neurosciences Foundation, as a joint project, formed a non-profit organisation, namely, National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta (NNC), with the objective to provide a centre of excellence in neurosciences for the benefit of the public at large. The National Neurosciences Centre was registered as a society whose Memorandum of Association provided that its income and properties shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the society and no portion thereof shall be paid or divided amongst any of its members by way of profits. Further, NNC was also registered as a charitable institution.
10.1. The appellant and NNC have entered into an agreement dated 29.11.2007 whereby NNC functions at the hospital premises of the appellant and uses its infrastructure like beds, operation theatres, etc., as also staff like nurses, sevikas, technicians and other non-medical staff essential for health care services in Page 15 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB the field of neuroscience. The agreement provides, inter alia, that NNC would reimburse the appellant bed charges after deducting 10%, 10% of OT charges including fixed charge for consumables and 5% of ITU bed charges billed by NNC as also salaries of nurses, sevikas, technicians and other non-medical staff.
11. On that reimbursement, the Revenue is seeking Service Tax from the appellant under the categories of "business support service" and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service". In fact, the remuneration between the appellant and NNC is in the nature of a joint venture and therefore, the appellant did not render any service to NNC.
11.1. We find that the fact of arrangement between the appellant and NNC was that of a joint venture, which is clear from the agreement entered into between the parties. The parties wanted to collaborate and run the business activities connected with the hospital services and the appellant shared the responsibility by providing infrastructure and medical/non-medical staff to NNC. Charges were collected from the patients, which have been shared, for such infrastructure only. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has provided any service to NNC.
11.2. We also take note of the fact that for the period from April, 2014 to March, 2015, the lower authorities have dropped the proceedings against the appellant, holding that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not fall under the categories of "business support service" and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service".
Page 16 of 20Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB
12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the appellant has received the reimbursement only as per the joint venture agreement entered into, which does not fall within the ambit of "business support service" or "manpower recruitment or supply agency service". Consequently, we hold that no Service Tax is payable by the appellant under the categories of business support service" or "manpower recruitment or supply agency service".
13. With regard to the demand of Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service", we find that the appellant had M/s. Coffee Day Express and M/s. Fresh and Honest Café Ltd. to supply food and beverages to visitors at the hospital premises against payment of 20% of monthly sale proceeds. Food and beverages were to be supplied to the appellant's employees, its contractual employees and doctors working in the hospital at lower rates and no part of the sale proceeds received from them were to be shared with the appellant. As it is a case of revenue sharing, it cannot be said that the appellant have rented out their premises to M/s. Coffee Day Express and M/s. Fresh and Honest Café Ltd.
13.1. It is also an admitted fact that where the vendors supplied food and beverages to the staff of the appellant at a concessional rate, the appellant has not recovered any amount from their employees or doctors on account of the concession given by the service providers, namely, M/s. Coffee Day Express and M/s. Fresh and Honest Café Ltd. The appellant did not receive any amount towards the said concession. In these circumstances, no demand can be raised against the appellant.
Page 17 of 20Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB 13.2. Moreover, it is also a fact that the appellant has not rented out any property to M/s. Coffee Day Express or M/s. Fresh and Honest Café Ltd for any particular amount of rent.
13.3. We also observe that the said issue has already been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata [Final Order No. 76702 of 2024 dated 22.08.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75804 of 2014 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it was observed as under: -
"Issue No. (3) Renting of Immovable property service and business auxiliary service w.r.t. sharing of revenue with CINRC and ADCPL and parking fees 18,77,322/-
14. We find that the appellant has an arrangement for MRI and Dental Divisions, where the Experts were paying for MRI Scanning and providing Dental treatment. The appellant is a Joint Venture for providing sharing the amount received by the appellant. In case of MRI Scanning, the appellant retained 5% of the total amount received by them and in case of Dental, the appellant retained 20% of the amount recovered from the patients. The Revenue shows that the amount as retained by the appellant is under "Renting of Immovable Property Service". On going through the agreement placed before us, we find that the appellants were sharing the amount recovered from the patients for providing health care services. In that circumstances, the amount retained by the appellant is not towards the Renting of Immovable Property Services. Therefore, no service tax is payable by the appellant under "Renting of Immovable Property Service".
15. Further, we find that on Parking Fees recovered by the appellant, the vacant land used for parking purposes, which is subsequently excluded from the definition of taxable service. Therefore, on the Parking Charges, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax.
16. In this regard, we also find a support from the order of this Tribunal in the case of Aashlok Nursing Home Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula reported in Page 18 of 20 Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB 2024 (5) TMI 888, wherein this Tribunal has held as under :
"the relationship between the hospital and the pathology laboratory is in the nature of a joint venture and, therefore, the appellant did not provide any service to such pathology laboratory agencies. The fact that the arrangement between the appellant and the agencies was a joint venture is clear from the arrangement entered into between the parties. The parties wanted to collaborate and jointly run the business activities connected with pathology laboratory tests. The appellant shared responsibilities with the pathology lab. The patients belong to the appellant, and the laboratory collected the charges from the patients of the appellant. The laboratories conducted testing activities for the patients of the appellant, for which the fees charged from the patients was shared between the appellant and the testing agencies. The appellant provided water, electricity, some of the instruments and other infrastructural needs of the testing laboratories for fee. The agreements laid down conditions by which the testing laboratories and the hospital will contribute their respective shares in the activities, and also the rules for conducting the business. This is not a case of the appellant providing only infrastructural facilities and receiving a income.
Thus, it is clearly a case of joint venture in which neither any party renders any service to the other. In this connection, reliance can be placed to the decision of the Tribunal in Mormugao Port Trust."
17. We, therefore, hold that on the amount recovered as Parking Charges and the amount retained by the appellant for MRI and Dental services, the appellants are not liable to service tax under heading "Renting of Immovable Property Service". Accordingly, the demand of Rs.18,77,322/- is dropped.
18. Therefore, Issue No.(3) is also answered in favour of the appellant."
14. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the demand of Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" is not sustainable.
Page 19 of 20Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB
15. With regard to the demand under the category of "works contract service", the appellant has admitted and paid part of the demand, along with interest, before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Due to some calculation error, an amount of Rs.31,999/- is recoverable from the appellant. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that although it can be verified from the records that the said amount pertains to sale of materials, but to buy peace, the appellant did not want to litigate further and therefore, the said demand has been conceded by the appellant. Accordingly, the same is payable by the appellant, along with interest, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this Order.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside.
17. In the result, we pass the following order: -
(1) The demands of Service Tax under the category of "business support service" and "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" are set aside.
(2) The demand of Service Tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" is also set aside.
(3) Under the category of "works contract service", the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.31,999/-, along with interest, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this Order. (4) The penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside.Page 20 of 20
Appeal No(s).: ST/75982/2016, ST/76858/2018 & ST/75494/2021-DB
18. In these terms, the appeals are disposed of.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) Sd/-
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sdd