Stem cell banking services taxable under service tax, exemption notifications cannot apply retrospectively without express provision

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that stem cell/umbilical cord blood banking services were taxable under service tax. The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and claimed retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST. The tribunal rejected retrospective application, following Madras HC precedent in Life Cell International case, ruling that amending notifications cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Extended limitation period was upheld due to appellant's wilful default in registration and return filing despite departmental insistence. Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU was held non-clarificatory and cannot expand legislative mandate. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Taxability of services provided by M/s StemCyte under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Applicability of the Negative List and Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
3. Retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST.
4. Invocation of the extended period for demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Services Provided by M/s StemCyte:

M/s StemCyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the collection, processing, and storage of Umbilical Cord Blood (UCB) Stem Cells. The primary question was whether these services were taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal observed that the activities performed by M/s StemCyte fell under the definition of "service" as per Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and were not covered under the Negative List (Section 66D). Therefore, these services were taxable from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.

2. Applicability of the Negative List and Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST:

M/s StemCyte claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, arguing that their services were "Health care services by a clinical establishment." However, the Tribunal clarified that the definition of "Health care services" in Clause 2(t) of the Mega Exemption Notification did not include the services provided by M/s StemCyte. The services of collecting, processing, and storing UCB Stem Cells were not considered as diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality, or pregnancy. Consequently, these services did not qualify for exemption under the said notification.

3. Retrospective Application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST:

Notification No. 04/2014-ST dated 17.02.2014 amended Notification No. 25/2012-ST to include services provided by Cord Blood Banks by way of preservation of stem cells under the exemption. M/s StemCyte argued that this amendment should be considered clarificatory and thus retrospective. However, the Tribunal, relying on the decision in LIFE CELL INTERNATION (P) LTD vs. Union of India, held that the amendment was prospective. The Tribunal emphasized that amendatory statutes are generally not given retroactive effect unless clearly stated. Therefore, the exemption applied only from 17.02.2014 onwards.

4. Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994:

The Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period for demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was observed that M/s StemCyte had not disclosed their taxable activities to the Department, failed to obtain service tax registration in time, and did not file ST-3 returns. These actions were considered as suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Consequently, the extended period of five years was invoked for the recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,07,29,576/- for the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.

5. Imposition of Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:

The Tribunal imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. M/s StemCyte was found liable for penalties due to failure to obtain service tax registration, non-payment of service tax, and non-filing of returns. The Tribunal noted that the suppression of facts and deliberate evasion of service tax warranted the imposition of penalties. The penalty under Section 78 was imposed at 50% of the service tax determined, as the details of transactions were recorded in specified records.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by M/s StemCyte were taxable from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014 and did not qualify for exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The amendment introduced by Notification No. 04/2014-ST was prospective and not retrospective. The extended period for demand was correctly invoked, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were justified. The appeal was rejected, and the order of the Commissioner was upheld.

---