TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking Section 80 ibid, when the issue on merits as well as the issue of limitation itself are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, upon which, only 'sufficient cause' for invoking Section 80 or otherwise would emerge? And ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in waiving the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, when this Court, in the case of M/s.Arvinth Hospital has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority and not waived penalty under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was considerable confusion as to whether the services rendered under a scheme floated by the Government would fall within the category of health services for levy of service tax, we find that the appellant has put forward reasonable cause for not discharging service tax on the entire value raised in the Bill. It is a fit case to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, as it stood then. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to do so. As discussed, in the instant case, the penalty imposed is unwarranted. Further, the appellant has paid to the Government the service tax collected from the insurance company. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the opinion that invoking Section 80, the penalty requires to be set aside, which, we hereb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been to consider the preliminary objections taken by the petitioner therein by stating that "Kalaignar Kaapittu Thittam" is a welfare scheme and not an insurance policy, that no approval was obtained from the Insurance Regulation and Development Authority of India and that therefore, they would not fall within the definition of 'Health Checkup and Treatment Services'. The second aspect, which this Court pointed out was with regard to the aspect as to who was the insured, as the specific case of the petitioner therein was that the recipient is the public, who are below the poverty line and that there was no policy drawn between the beneficiary and the STAR or the petitioner therein. Therefore, ultimately, the matter stood remanded....