CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 51987 of 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 10/ST/CHD-II/2015 dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II]

Fortis Heathcare Ltd …Appellant Fortis Hospital, Sector 62, Phase VIII, Mohali 160062 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise and …Respondent Service Tax, Chandigarh-II Central Revenue Building, Plot No. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 APPEARANCE:

Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Anurag Kumar and Mr. Goverdhan Dass Bansal, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60001/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 11.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 06.01.2026 S. S. GARG :

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, vide which the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,47,12,837/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalties under Sections 77 & 78 of the Act;

however, no penalty was imposed under Section 76 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are engaged in provision of Health Care Services to their patients, which are either non-taxable or exempt from service tax during the different periods involved in the show cause notices; in the course of such provisions, the Appellant availed certain specialized services such as Radio Diagnosis, MRT, CT Scan, Dental Care etc from specialized service providers namely, (i) CT Scan Research Centre Pvt Ltd, (ii) Landmark Medscan Pvt Ltd and (iii) Axiss Dental Pvt Ltd (refers as ‘DSPs’) within the hospital premises on payment of agreed/fixed consideration/revenue. The Appellant entered into specific agreements with all these DSPs, the terms & conditions of which clearly states that it is a service simpliciter agreement on principal-to-principal basis. The department entertained the view that the Appellant were providing ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’ to the DSPs and therefore, the Appellant are liable to pay service tax under the said category. On these allegations, the department issued the show cause notice dated 22.04.2014 by invoking the extended period of limitation. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner, vide the impugned Order-in- Original, confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant have preferred the present appeal before us.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents.

4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees/appellants in the following cases:

 OP Jindal Institute of Cancer & Research [Final Order No. 60579/2024 dated 16.10.2024 – CESTAT Chandigarh]

 Om Savitri Jindal Charitable Society and NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research [Final Order No. 61695-61696/2025 dated 20.11.2025 – CESTAT Chandigarh]

 NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research [Final Order No. 61736/2025 dated 02.12.2025]

4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the Appellant are not providing ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’ to the DSPs rather the Appellant are engaged in providing comprehensive Health Care Services to their patients. He further submits that the Appellant are the receiver of services provided by the vendors, therefore the finding of the Commissioner, that the Appellant are providing services to the vend