AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Treatment, Tricort Injection, Wart Removal, Vitiligo Treatment (treatment of white patches on skin), Skin Resurfacing for wounds and other dermato-surgical procedures. 2. The appellant is offering services for beautification or for enhancement of looks, where patients do not have any disease, which is developed because of any injury, accident etc. for rendering services purely for aesthetic purposes, the appellant has discharged the service tax liability. In respect of other services, the appellant availed exemption in terms of Entry No.2 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012 as they qualify as 'Health Care Services' within the meaning of paragraph 2(t) of the said notification. 3. During the search proceedings, it was found that the appellant is maintaining their data in two formats, first in the form of Kachcha register and second in their software in soft copy. The name of the software is 'zenoti', which is owned by M/s. Urenok Software, who refused to provide the details as the appellant had not permitted them to do so. In the absence of such details, the Department had taken the readily available data for assessment under Section 72 of the Act. The liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, there is no error in the application of the provisions of law. He also emphasised that the exemption as claimed is allowed only in the event of providing healthcare services by authorised medical practitioner through any clinical establishment. But in the instant case, the services provided by the appellant are not covered under the healthcare services rather the services are related to preserving and enhancing of skin, hair, scalp for enhancing the physical appearance and improving the look of the person, which is more appropriately covered under 'cosmetic and plastic surgery services' and, therefore, liable to payment of service tax. The application of Section 72 was justified due to absence of the detail/break-up of the data and, therefore, the Department was justified in calculating the demand as per the highest rate of service tax. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department supported the finding that the appellant is not eligible for cum-tax benefit as the appellant had not received any such amount of service tax from their clients. On the invocation of the extended period of limitation, it was submitted that the appellant is working under self-assessment sy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicines in India, or a place established as an independent entity or a part of an establishment to carry out diagnostic or investigative services of diseases; "2(t) "Health care services" means any service by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicines in India and includes services by way of transportation of the patient to and from a clinical establishment, but does not include hair transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery, except when undertaken to restore or to reconstruct anatomy or functions of body affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, injury or trauma." 9. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, the prerequisite conditions to be satisfied are that the services should be provided by clinical establishment, the service provider should be an authorised medical practitioner or paramedics and the services should be in the nature of healthcare service as defined. There is no doubt that the appellant is a 'clinical establishment' as it provides services or facilities requiring diagnosis, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18.04.2023] (4) Mohak Hi Tech Specialty Hospital Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Indore [2025(6) TMI 8 -CESTAT-New Delhi dated 23.05.2025] (5) Commissioner of Central Tax Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East Vs. Sanjay Electricals (Vice Versa) [2024 (1) TMI 891 -CESTAT-New Delhi dated 18.01.2024] (6) Berkowits Hair & Skin Clinic Vs. Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Delhi South [2023 (11) Centax 56 (Tri.-Del)/2023(386) ELT 745 (Tri.-Del.)] 13. In Mohak Hi Tech Speciality Hospital, the Tribunal dealt with the period involving both pre-negative and post-negative and therefore, considered the cosmetic surgery or plastic surgery as taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzzk) and also the definition of health care services under the Mega Exemption Notification, with reference to bariatric surgery. The Bench also distinguished that liposuction, which is commonly known 'cosmetic surgery' is distinct from bariatric surgery as liposuction only removes excess fat of the body so as to improve the shape and contour of the body whereas the aim and objective of bariatric surgery was to cure the state of morbid obesity and related diseases. It was, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dures result in physical enhancement and beauty without analysing the respective services. We, therefore, find it appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to give reasoned findings on each of the services rendered by the appellant in the light of the principles laid down in the various decision cited. 17. The submission of Shri Batra, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant that the demand under SCN was proposed under the provisions which were not in existence during the relevant period is devoid of merits in view of the contents of the show cause notice, which specifically deals with the provisions of Section 66D read with the Mega Exemption Notification and, therefore, the services are taxable under Section 66B of the Act. Paragraph 18 and 19 of SCN, which are self-explanatory are quoted below: - "18. As the services provided by M/s. Trichoderm are not covered in the services specified in the negative list defined under Section 66D of the Finance Act. 1994 nor they are covered by Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 these services are provided in the taxable territory by them to Service recipients as mentioned above.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt to best judgement under Section 72 of the Act. 21. The SCN proposed service tax amounting to Rs.2,61,94,416/- however, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand beyond the said amount, which is Rs.2,62,91,823/-. On the face of it, we agree with the submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the amount not proposed in the show cause notice is not sustainable as the same is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 22. The challenge on the ground of denial of cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2) has been objected by the Revenue relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Agro Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2007(210) ELT 183 (SC)] however, the context in which the observations were made are not really applicable in the present case. The Apex Court noted that because the wholesale price is usually the cum-duty price, section 4(4)(d)(ii) lays down that the value will not include duty of excise, sales tax, and other taxes, if any, payable on the goods, and therefore, if a manufacturer includes in the wholesale price, an amount by way of tax, even when no such tax is payable, then he is really, including something in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment, which came to their notice only at the initiation of investigation and working under self-assessment system, the appellant was required to submit the correct facts that the procedures are cosmetic in nature. We do not find merits in the submissions of the Revenue for the simple reason that the appellant had filed all the ST-3 Returns and maintained the audited accounts. The Department had resorted to best judgement assessment under Section 72, and therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi [Final Order No.51088/2023 in Service Tax Appeal No.51787 of 2022 dated 21.08.2023] the error, if any, was on the part of the officer, who was responsible for the assessment. Further, there is no doubt that the issue is one of interpretation as to whether the service rendered by the appellant would fall under the health care service and would therefore, be entitled to exemption or they would be covered under the cosmetic and plastic surgery leviable to service tax. It is a settled principle of law that where the issue is one of interpretation, the element of suppression or misstatement cannot be attributed on the a....