Case Law Details
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom (CESTAT Bangalore)
it is seen that the ayurvedic centres are providing therapeutic treatment under ayurvedic system. Going by the mere fact that the centres are located in the resorts and sometimes the duration of treatment is for one or two days, it cannot be concluded that the massages or treatments offered by these centres are only for general well-being and not for any therapeutic value. The Order-in-Original also refers to the ambience and the fees charged in the packages and finds that these cannot be equated to treatment. We fail to understand as to how the cost of treatment and the ambience of the treatment would render such treatments to be non-therapeutic and only for well-being. For that matter, the duration of treatment is also no criteria. In case of consultations by psychiatrists, the sessions may last even one day, for that reason one cannot conclude that the psychiatrists ceases to be a doctor. The duration and the type of treatment depends on the diseases, the conditions of the patient, and the expertise of the doctor. It is not always necessary that the treatment should be only in the dull / dreary atmosphere of hospitals alone. If some well to do patients prefer to have treatment in a better circumstances and are willing to pay for the same, such treatments cannot be „for that sole reason‟, held to be no treatment. It is common knowledge that a good number of foreign tourists visit Kerala during a particular season for pleasure as well as medical reasons. Not all the people who stay in the resort may take the treatment. What is important is whether such treatments are given by a qualified Doctor/Doctors and whether the procedures are prescribed under therapeutic tests. It is not the department‟s contention that the massages and panchakarma and other treatments provided by the respondents are not mentioned in ayurvedic texts. The learned counsel for the respondents have clearly brought out that these processes/treatments are emanating from the ayurvedic texts like Astangahrudaya, Sahasrayoga, Charakasamhitha, Susruthasamhitha, etc. Supervision of such treatments are being given by or given under the guidance of professional ayurvedic doctors. Such ayurvedic centres are licensed to function as ayurvedic centres by the respective authorities. Therefore, we find that all the required conditions for such treatments to be treated as therapeutic are specified and will fall under the exclusion provided by the Board Circular cited above.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Appeal Nos. ST/100/2009 and ST/92/2009 were held on 26.7.2018 and Appeal No.ST/101/2009 was heard on 27.7.2018. All the three departmental appeals are against the orders of the Commissioner (A) and the issue involved in all the cases is one and the same. Therefore, the same are taken together for final disposal. The details of the appeals are as under:
I appreciate this work amazing post for us I like it.