AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.64,61,530/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty. A miscellaneous application has also been filed for filing additional documents, namely agreements executed by the appellant with the medical colleges and hospitals for the said services. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a proprietorship entity engaged in the business of Manpower Recruitment Agency Services, supplying nursing, orderly services to various Central and State Government, Medical Colleges and Hospitals. The department alleged that the services, including cleaning of bedsheet of patients and cleaning of tiles, etc were covered under the taxable service of Manpower Recruitment. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20.04.2015 was issued. Vide the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption as the service provided by them was in relation to public health and sanitation. He also contended that all the facts were known to the department, hence, no penalty was imposable. 4. Learned Authorized Representative at the outset reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He stated that the adjudicating authority had rightly denied the benefit of abatement to the appellant and correctly confirmed the demand after re-calculation along with appropriate interest and penalty. He submitted that the appellant's contention that the hospital is an integral part of the medical College was not acceptable as all medical colleges have attached hospitals, but not all hospitals are compulsory attached to medical colleges. Hence the hospit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The taxable services,- (A) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)................. (v) provided or agreed to be provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle designed to carry passengers to any person who is not in the similar line of business or supply of manpower for any purpose or security services or service portion in execution of works contract by any individual, Hindu Undivided Family or partnership firm, whether registered or not, including association of persons located in the taxable territory to a business entity registered as body corporate, located in the taxable territory: II) The extent of service tax payable thereon by the person who provides the service and the person who receives the service for the taxable ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were received from these entities who were the service recipients and the activity of the Noticee is that of Manpower supply only. It is evident that the service recipients were Government Hospitals or Charitable Organizations. The said service recipients do not fall under the category of "business entity registered as a body corporate" which is essential for being eligible for abatement @ 25% under Notification No. 30/2012-ST (supra). Hence, we hold that the appellant was not eligible to avail the benefit of exemption as provided in the said Notification 30/2012, ibid. In this context, we draw support from the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Dilip Kumar [AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3606] wherein it held that ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egory of manpower, recruitment, and supply agency services..... 4. I find that the notice has not contested the classification of the services and their liability to pay tax under the impugned service category, that is manpower, recruitment and supply agency services. Rather, they have challenged the demand on the following issues..............................................................................." 9. Once this ground was not taken at the original level, the same cannot be taken at a later stage viz., before this Tribunal. In this context, we draw support from the Supreme court's decision in Union of India versus Ibrahem Uddin & Anr [2012 & SCC 148] where the Apex Court held that application for taking additional evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide: Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S. K. Mohammed & Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co., AIR 1978 SC 798). 38. Under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounc....