TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Appl-II/Delhi/2017 dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Tax, Delhi wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is registered with Service Tax Department for providing various taxable services. During the audit of records of the respondent by the appellant, it was observed that the respondent had failed to pay the Service Tax on (a) Corporate Guarantee extended for their associate enterprises and (b) margin retained by them for booking the space of cargo in the Airlines/ Ships for their importer/exporter. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, and vide order-in-original, the adjudicating authority held that the activi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er company, whose guarantee has been taken unless there are proportionate consideration. It was emphasised that the respondent is required to maintain registers/records as per Section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, which the respondent had failed to maintain. The respondent also did not provide any document in support of the execution of Corporate Guarantee. Therefore, the dropping of the demand by the impugned order was not legal. 2.2 As regard the booking of space, the impugned order observed that the nature of the service is clearly distinguishable from the nature of the activity of an agent. The ld AR submitted that the service provided by the respondent by way of arranging services of ship liners for transportation of cargo of thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on taxability of service tax on profit/mark up is no more res integra and relied on the decision of Tiger Logistics India Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi- II [2022(2)TMI 455-CESTAT NEW DELHI]. 4. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative for the Department and the Learned Counsel for the respondent. The two issues which are before us for consideration are (i) whether provision of corporate guarantee without consideration is taxable and (ii) whether the profit/markup is liable to service tax. 5. We note that both the issues before us are no more res integra. 5.1 The issue of taxability of providing Corporate Guarantee without any consideration was dealt at length by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot taxable service. He would also read Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act 1994 to point out that the definition of service would indicate that it relates to only such service which is rendered for valuable consideration. 5. The counsel would next advert to paragraph 3.1.12 of the Commissioner's order where the following was recorded:- "further, the consideration can be of two types viz., monetary consideration and non-monetary consideration. In the present case, the Assessee has argued that they have not received any consideration. In such case it's for the department to prove that the Assessee's claim is wrong. It is observed that nowhere in the Show Cause Notice, attempt has been made to prove that the Assessee received either m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994. 'Consideration' is the recompense for the 'contractual' undertaking that authorizes levy while 'assessable value' is a determination for computing the measure of the levy and the latter must follow the former." 7. The above would suggest that this was a case where the assessee had not received any consideration while providing corporate guarantee to its group companies. No effort was made on behalf of the Revenue to assail the above finding or to demonstrate that issuance of corporate guarantee to group companies without consideration would be a taxable service. In these circumstances, in view of such conclusive finding of both forums, we see no reason to admit this case basing upon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurs loss. In a contrary situation, it gains profits. This activity is a business in itself on account of the appellant and cannot be called a service at all. Neither can the profit earned from such business be termed consideration for service. Respectfully following Satkar Logistics, Nilja Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Surya Shipping and ITC Freight Services, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax." 5.3 The Tribunal in an earlier decision in the case of M/s Greenwich Meridian Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2016(4) TMI-547-CESTAT MUMBAI held as follows: "12. The appellant takes responsibility for safety of goods and issues a document of title which is a multi-modal bill of....