TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity of re-launch/upgradation of the Healthy India Website for the Ministry of Health - CBEC circular dated 09.07.2001 - Held that: - PHFI has received “grants-in-aid” from the Ministry of Health - there is no service being rendered by PHFI to Ministry in lieu of grant - there is no no service provider-service recipient relationship between the parties - no Service Tax is to be paid on the amount received by PHFI from the Ministry of Health. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/3396/2012 & 60009/2013 - Final Order No.51330-51331/2018 - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Hon ble And V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Venkataraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, DR ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan These two appeals are filed against Order-in-Original No.132/2012 dated 30.07.2012 and Order-in-Appeal No.90/2013 dated 19.072013. The Order-in- Original has demanded Service Tax with interest and penalties for the period December, 2008 to February, 2011. The Order-in-Appeal has confirmed the demand for the subsequent period March, 2011 to March, 2012. The appellant (PHFI) is registered with the Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d disbursement was not in relation to any service provided in the capacity of Commercial Training or Coaching Service. Such grant was meant for organizing the programme and meeting the expenses thereto. ii) The Commercial Training or Coaching Service was provided by PHFI only to the participants. No services were provided at the behest of MSD and hence the grant cannot be considered as consideration for the service provided. iii) He referred to the CBEC circular No.127/09/2010-ST dated 16.08.2010 in which it has been clarified that unless the link or nexus between the amount and the taxable activity can be established, the amount cannot be subject to Service Tax under Commercial Training and Coaching Services. He argued that the parties under the agreement were acting on a principal to principal basis and no service was provided by one to the other. He further referred to the obligations of PHFI as well as MSD under the agreement and argued that MSD has no role in running the programme and further that no banner, logo or free samples of drugs marketed and distributed by MSD will be presented or distributed during the training programme. This clearly establishes that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt heavily relied on the clauses of the agreement. In particular Serial No.8, where in was specified that M/s MSD will not distribute any publicity material, however, simultaneously it is also mentioned in the same para that all parties also agree that the training material, banner and display board used during conduct of the program will bear the statement acknowledging that the program is started by educational grants from M/s MSD along with its logo. From the above, it is abundantly clear that M/s MSD in turn is getting its brand promotion amongst 2000 physicians. It is worth here that M/s MSD are a heading Diabetes Medicine manufacturer and the purpose for granting such grant is quit obvious. Further, the case laws relied upon by the Opposing Counsel is involving grant invariably from statutory without any guide pro quo bodies which is not so in the instant case. The grant is provided by the private person to get his brand promoted. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant is liable to pay the Service Tax on the account. A small demand is towards maintenance management and repair services is explained in 28.01 of Order-in-Original, which is very clear and do not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxable service of training to doctors has been partially paid by the trainee doctors @ ₹ 8000/- per participant and partially by MSD in the form of grant. Perusal of Section 67 reveals that it does not specify that the consideration for the service is to be received only from the person receiving the benefit of service. It may very well be that the consideration is paid by a third party. 12. The appellant has referred to the CBEC circular dated 16.08.2010 in which certain aspects of consideration received for commercial training or coaching service has been clarified. CBEC has emphasized that there has to be a link or nexus between the amount received as consideration and the taxable service and in cases where there is no link between the grant and the trainee or training, no Service Tax is liable. 13. A perusal of the agreement vis- -vis the facts of the case reveals that the amount received as grant from MSD is specifically towards defraying the cost of running the training programme for doctors. Consequently, we are of the view that the link between the amount and the training is direct and hence the amount received from MSD, even though a third party in the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
