M\/s Diabetes Thyroid Hormone Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Excise And Customs
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 387 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. J168 (M. P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-12-2018
CEA 87\/2018
Service Tax
S.C. SHARMA AND VIRENDER SINGH JJ.
\nShri Sumit Nema, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
\nShri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel on behalf of Central Goods and Service Tax Excise and Customs.
\n1. The appellant before this court has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 05.07.2018 passed in ST\/A\/52429\/2018-CU[DB] by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
\n2. L<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n h 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 who have been appointed by Director General of Health Services. He has further argued before this Court that no service charge can be charged on the petitioner and as the petiti<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Senior Counsel does not arise. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Diabetes Thyroid Hormone Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Excise And CustomsService Tax2018 (12) TMI 387 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. J168 (M. P.)MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 3-12-2018CEA 87\/2018 Service TaxS.C. SHARMA AND VIRENDER SINGH JJ. Shri Sumit Nema, … Continue reading “M\/s Diabetes Thyroid Hormone Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Excise And Customs”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15413","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15413"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15413\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15413"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15413"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. 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:-
\n(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?
\n(iv) Whether the CESTAT was correct in arriving at the finding that Appellant is not Clinical Research Organization (CRO) without appreciating the fact that (CRO) is basically a collective definition given to various units <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n