2018 (12) TMI 387 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI – Service provided by way of technical testing or analysis of new developed drugs – exemption from payment of service tax – Held that:- This Court after taking into account the material available on record, is of the opinion that the present appeal certainly deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law – it is directed that the respondent shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. – CEA 87/2018 Dated:- 3-12-2018 – S.C. SHARMA AND VIRENDER SINGH JJ. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel on behalf of Central Goods and Service Tax Excise and Customs. 1. The appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d to conduct drug trial and the agreement is on record. 3. Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the order passed by Director General of Health Services dated 27.02.2014 appointing Dr. Sunil Jain as an Investigator and his contention is that the learned Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs after taking into account the notification has arrived at a conclusion that no service tax can be imposed upon the petitioner organization. He has stated that thereafter department went an appeal and the Appellate Tribunal has reversed the findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner. He has stated that the present appellant has been singled out and no action has been taken in respect of 21 others investigators
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ake action against other persons also. He has stated that the petitioner is only an investigator and the question of grant of benefit of the notifications referred by the learned Senior Counsel does not arise. 4. This Court after taking into account the material available on record, is of the opinion that the present appeal certainly deserves to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (ii) Whether the CESTAT was correct in fact and in law in arriving at the finding that the Appellant is only a trial site and principal investigator and not Clinical Research Organization without consideration of Agreement entered into between the Sponsors of Clinical Trial and the Appellant? (iv) Whether the CESTAT was correct in arriving
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =