CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 51988 of 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 09/ST/CHD-II/2015 dated 16.02.2015 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. 60002/2026 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 16.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, vide which the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.50,03,768/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalties under Sections 76 & 77 of the Act;

however, no penalty was imposed under Section 78 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 entered into agreements with specialist visiting doctors to provide their specialized services to the Appellant’s hospital. Based on information that the Appellant were engaged in providing Business Support Services and were not paying service tax thereon, an investigation was initiated against the Appellant. As per the department, the services provided by the Appellant are not Health Care Services but are Business Support Services provided to doctors in the form of infrastructural support and administrative support to the doctors in the hospital and therefore, the Appellant are liable to pay service tax under the taxable category of ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’. On these allegations, the department had issued a show cause notice dated 28.05.2012 and subsequently issued the show cause notice dated 20.05.2014 (which is impugned in the present appeal), by invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging that the activity engaged in by the doctors for gain/livelihood would also constitute business. It was also alleged that the Appellant have deliberately and willfully suppressed the material facts from the department by not reflecting the consideration amounts received for providing ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’ in their ST-3 returns for the relevant period with an intent to evade payment of service tax thereon. 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 Appellant in Appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 60742/2019 dated 03.09.2019 in Service Tax Appeal No. 53250 of 2014 (wherein the show cause notice dated 28.05.2012 was impugned). He also submits that it has been consistently held by the Tribunal in various decisions that the services provided by the hospitals are not ‘