Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs D G Nakrani (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The Revenue appealed against a common Order-in-Original by which, out of a total service tax demand of Rs.16,36,81,158/-, a demand of Rs.88,82,663 was confirmed while a demand of Rs.15,47,98,495 was dropped. The respondent was engaged in providing manpower recruitment or supply agency services, cleaning services, housekeeping services, rent-a-cab services and solid waste management services to government hospitals, community health centres, medical colleges, municipal corporations, government educational institutions and other government offices. The Revenue contended that the respondent merely supplied manpower and cleaning services and was not entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended, since the services did not amount to public health or sanitation services. It also challenged the exemption granted for services to educational institutions, the reliance on a Chartered Accountant’s certificate for dropping part of the demand, and the finding that the extended period of limitation was not invocable.
The respondent submitted that the appeals travelled beyond the allegations in the show cause notices, which never disputed that the service recipients were government hospitals, health centres or other government bodies. It contended that the paramedics and supporting staff supplied worked under the supervision of medical officers in government hospitals and public health centres, thereby satisfying the conditions of Sl. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. It further argued that cleaning and housekeeping services provided to government institutions formed part of public sanitation and that manpower supplied to educational institutions was exempt under Sl. No. 9 of the notification. The respondent also contended that the dispute involved interpretation of the exemption notification and therefore the extended period of limitation was not available.
