TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax of Rs. 55, 158/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5, 516/- under the provision of Section 76. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing taxable service in the category of "Outdoor Catering Services" and availed the benefit of exemption provided at S. No. 19 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. On the scrutiny of the ST-3 return during the period of July, 2012 to September, 2012, it was observed that the exemption claimed by the appellant as per Sr. No. 2 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was not applicable on the ground that the Sr. No. 2 of the said Notification provide exemption to 'Health care services' provided by a clinical establishment or Para Med....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the hospital for the patients admitted for the treatment, and for the out-door patients. Learned counsel contended that canteen premises has no facility of air conditioning. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that some part of the establishment/hospital has the facility of the air conditioning by considering the whole premises of the Hospital, was totally irrelevant. Further, by not considering the benefit of exemption of Sr. No. 19 of the Notification No: 25/2012-ST by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not just and proper for the reason that without the facility of air conditioning, no hospital can run. However, the premises where the appellant served food has no facility of Air conditioning and this fact has not at all co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. No. 19 of the notification which should not be denied. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that the onus of proof is on the appellant to prove their case, that the service provided by them is covered under the exemption notification. Commissioner (Appeals) in Para-6 of the impugned order has categorically held that the appellant have not been able to prove their case. Hence, onus was on the appellant to rebut the presumption/ finding given by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and to prove their case that they are covered by the said Exemption Notification. In support of his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- * Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company - 2018 (361) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the mess being setup for in-patient services, would form a part of the hospital establishment only. Learned AR has submitted that the exemption has been provided to a mess eating joint etc., without air-conditioning facility and the appellant would not be eligible to such exemption. He contended that it is settled law that the notifications have to be interpreted in a strict manner. In this context, we take note in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar and Company - 2018 [(361) ELT 577 (S.C.)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "41. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of which were cited before us and after giving our anxious consideration, we would be more than justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns towards various taxes. Any ambiguity in a taxation provision, therefore, is interpreted in favour of the subject/assessee. The statement of law that ambiguity in a taxation statute should be interpreted strictly and in the event of ambiguity the benefit should go to the subject/assessee may warrant visualizing different situations. For instance, if there is ambiguity in the subject of tax, that is to say, who are the persons or things liable to pay tax, and whether the revenue has established conditions before raising and justifying a demand. Similar is the case in roping all persons within the tax net, in which event the State is to prove the liability of the persons, as may arise within the strict language of the law. There cannot be a....