<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (3) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450348</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order regarding service tax exemptions for cleaning services and manpower supply. The tribunal confirmed that services provided to government hospitals, medical colleges, health centers, and educational institutions qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The demand of Rs. 50,02,195 was dropped, with only Rs. 60,604 sustained based on CA certificate verification. The tribunal rejected revenue&#039;s arguments about direct patient contracts and invoicing requirements for paramedics, stating these conditions are not specified in the exemption notification. Extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable as no willful suppression of facts was established. Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 10:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450348</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order regarding service tax exemptions for cleaning services and manpower supply. The tribunal confirmed that services provided to government hospitals, medical colleges, health centers, and educational institutions qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The demand of Rs. 50,02,195 was dropped, with only Rs. 60,604 sustained based on CA certificate verification. The tribunal rejected revenue&#039;s arguments about direct patient contracts and invoicing requirements for paramedics, stating these conditions are not specified in the exemption notification. Extended limitation period was deemed inapplicable as no willful suppression of facts was established. Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>