https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753007 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that corporate guarantee fees do not constitute Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) under Section 65(12)(a)(ix) of the Finance Act prior to 01.07.2012. The tribunal ruled that providing corporate guarantee is a separate mechanism to secure lending transactions and not related to lending activity itself. For the post-01.07.2012 period, the appellant had already discharged the tax liability in May 2015 before the Order-in-Original was issued. The tribunal also found that the extended period was wrongly invoked as there was no mala fide intention to evade payment. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753007 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that corporate guarantee fees do not constitute Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) under Section 65(12)(a)(ix) of the Finance Act prior to 01.07.2012. The tribunal ruled that providing corporate guarantee is a separate mechanism to secure lending transactions and not related to lending activity itself. For the post-01.07.2012 period, the appellant had already discharged the tax liability in May 2015 before the Order-in-Original was issued. The tribunal also found that the extended period was wrongly invoked as there was no mala fide intention to evade payment. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 21 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753007