https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442165 CESTAT Mumbai held that corporate guarantee services provided by appellant to related company in exchange for credit protection fee constitute taxable service under Banking and Other Financial Services. The tribunal found corporate guarantee and bank guarantee serve identical purposes of providing assurances to beneficiaries, with only distinction being guarantor's identity. Despite Section 65(12) of Finance Act 1994 specifically mentioning bank guarantee but omitting corporate guarantee, tribunal concluded legislative intent covered both guarantee types as they are similar in nature and purpose. Service tax demand was upheld as justified, but extended period of limitation was rejected due to unsettled legal position across different judicial forums. Appeal was allowed partially. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442165 CESTAT Mumbai held that corporate guarantee services provided by appellant to related company in exchange for credit protection fee constitute taxable service under Banking and Other Financial Services. The tribunal found corporate guarantee and bank guarantee serve identical purposes of providing assurances to beneficiaries, with only distinction being guarantor's identity. Despite Section 65(12) of Finance Act 1994 specifically mentioning bank guarantee but omitting corporate guarantee, tribunal concluded legislative intent covered both guarantee types as they are similar in nature and purpose. Service tax demand was upheld as justified, but extended period of limitation was rejected due to unsettled legal position across different judicial forums. Appeal was allowed partially. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442165