<?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 (5) TMI 370 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752317</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appellant hospital&#039;s appeal regarding deduction of medicine costs for health services under N/N. 12/2003-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the exemption benefit, relying on a larger bench decision requiring separate invoices for consumed goods. However, the HC Madhya Pradesh had set aside that precedent, ruling that exemption cannot be denied merely because medicine values weren&#039;t separately invoiced or sold independently. The tribunal held that since medicines were admittedly consumed in providing health services, the hospital was entitled to the deduction benefit. The original order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 370 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752317</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appellant hospital&#039;s appeal regarding deduction of medicine costs for health services under N/N. 12/2003-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the exemption benefit, relying on a larger bench decision requiring separate invoices for consumed goods. However, the HC Madhya Pradesh had set aside that precedent, ruling that exemption cannot be denied merely because medicine values weren&#039;t separately invoiced or sold independently. The tribunal held that since medicines were admittedly consumed in providing health services, the hospital was entitled to the deduction benefit. The original order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>