https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782916 Appeal allowed. The Tribunal held that under the MOUs, the arrangement between Appellant Hospital and partnering hospitals was on a principal-to-principal, revenue-sharing basis, constituting joint clinical management rather than provision of taxable services. The so-called "royalty"/"management fee" was found to be integral to healthcare delivery and not a separate Management/Business Consultancy Service. Reimbursement of salaries of deputed staff, remaining on the appellant's rolls, did not amount to Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. Training charges were not taxable as Commercial Coaching Service, being part of integrated, largely charitable healthcare operations. Service tax demand and consequential penalties were set aside, rendering limitation issues academic. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782916 Appeal allowed. The Tribunal held that under the MOUs, the arrangement between Appellant Hospital and partnering hospitals was on a principal-to-principal, revenue-sharing basis, constituting joint clinical management rather than provision of taxable services. The so-called "royalty"/"management fee" was found to be integral to healthcare delivery and not a separate Management/Business Consultancy Service. Reimbursement of salaries of deputed staff, remaining on the appellant's rolls, did not amount to Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. Training charges were not taxable as Commercial Coaching Service, being part of integrated, largely charitable healthcare operations. Service tax demand and consequential penalties were set aside, rendering limitation issues academic. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782916