TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 21.10.2015 i.e. by invoking the longer period of limitation. The dispute relates to the interpretational issue i.e. as to whether the cost of the medicines are required to be formed part of the value of the services or not. The original adjudicating authority had extended the benefit to the appellant. This fact, by itself, shows that the issue is a bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pite of notice of hearing having been sent well in advance to the appellant. Accordingly we have heard learned Dy.Commr. (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders. 2. The appellant M/s.Santushti Hospital Pvt.Ltd. were providing health services taxable under section 65(105)(zzzzo) of the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.07.2010. The said services became exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue before Commissioner(Appeals). The appellate authority by referring to the provisions of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 observed that the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to show that the medicines cost cannot be deducted from the value of the services. As regards limitation he observed that even though the Revenue had initiated enquiry against the assessee in 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational issue i.e. as to whether the cost of the medicines are required to be formed part of the value of the services or not. The original adjudicating authority had extended the benefit to the appellant. This fact, by itself, shows that the issue is a bona fide issue of interpretation and is capable of being interpreted in two different maners. In such a scenario no mala fide can be attributed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
