TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Gurugram, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant and upheld the orders of the Original Authority. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical in nature and there is common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. Particulars of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. ST/60927/2019 ST/60926/2019 Period involved April 2013 to March 2015 April 2015 to March 2016 Service Tax involved Rs.1,91,58,000/- Rs.1,65,90,086/- SCN date 01.06.2017 18.05.2017 OIO date 13.12.2018 28.12.2018 OIA date 27.06.2019 2. Briefly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Appellant has not charged any monetary consideration/commission on such Corporate Guarantee though the Appellant has borne a certain element of cost for providing such Corporate Guarantee; and in reply to the Show Cause Notice, it was submitted that the Appellant did not charge any consideration for the issuance of the Corporate Guarantee. 4.2 He further submits that the Appellant has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of its associated enterprises but has not charged any commission or interest for providing the said Corporate Guarantee. He also submits that even the Original Authority has noted in the Order-in-Original that no consideration was charged for providing Corporate Guarantee. 4.3 He further submits that the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 20.10.2023] * D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. UOI & ors - 2026-VIL-474-BOM 4.7 With regard to invocation of extended period of limitation, he submits that the demand is barred by limitation in the instant case as the Appellant had been filing ST-3 returns and books of accounts had been regularly audited by the department. He also submits that the allegations of fraud, mis-statement etc are completely vague, ambiguous and unspecific and therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. For this, he places reliance on the following decisions: * Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. CCE, Raipur - MANU/SC/0060/2013 * Collector of C.Ex., Hyderabad vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments - MNAU/SC/0112/1989 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant to reproduce the findings of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the said case: "8. The criticality of 'consideration' for determination of service, as defined in section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994, for the disputed period after introduction of 'negative list' regime of taxation has been rightly construed by the adjudicating authority. Any activity must, for the purpose of taxability under Finance Act, 1994, not only, in relation to another, reveal a 'provider', but also the flow of 'consideration' for rendering of the service. In the absence of any of these two elements, taxability under section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 will not arise. It is clear that there is no consideration insofar as 'corporate guarantee' issued by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e loan facilities from the financial institution at lower rate, therefore, the differential amount of interest is consideration, but there is no such evidence produced by the revenue on that behalf. In that circumstances, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on corporate guarantee provided by the appellant to various banks/financial institutions on behalf of their holding company/associate enterprises for their loan or over draft facility under Banking and Financial Institutions after or before 01.07.2012. 5. In view of this, we set-aside the impugned order qua demand of service tax on corporate guarantee provided by the appellant. We further take note of the fact that for the charges leviable on account ....