Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Secti...
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Upfront fee and excess spread income arising from securitization/sell-down of future receivables were held to be profits/interest from sale of receivables, with no underlying "service" element, and therefore not exigible to service tax under Business Support Service; the Department's challenge to dropping of these demands was not maintainable. Collection efficiency fee and sell-down servicing fee were accepted as taxable, and interest on delayed payment was upheld; however, this did not sustain the Revenue's appeal on merits. Alleged suppression was rejected since the material facts were already within departmental knowledge from an earlier notice, making invocation of the extended limitation period unjustified. Revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.