9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, there are no reason to admit this case. The order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noticee as well. I also observe that if the Noticee has not provided the corporate guarantee then their associate/ holding company has to provide Bank Guarantee and for providing bank guarantee they would have also paid the commission to the concerned Bank. Therefore, the value of cost borne by the Notice and the commission which was otherwise recoverable by them for providing the Corporate Guarantee, on which the Noticee is liable to pay service tax, has to be determined in terms of Clause 3(b) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 read with Section 67 (iii) of Finance Act, 1994. 13.15 xxxxxxxxx 13.16. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the activity of providing corporate guarantee by the Noticee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey 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 monetary or nonmonetary consideration in any form. It is not alleged or proved in the Show Cause Notice as to how the Assessee got any benefit from their subsidiaries in monetary or non-monetary terms for the Corporate Guarantees issued. Missing this vital point, valuation of the consideration using provisions of Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 become a futile exercise." 6. Mr. Rai Chandani then read paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal, which are extracted below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 pending Civil Appeal No. 428, @ Diary No.42703/2019, particularly when it has not been demonstrated that the factual matrix of the pending case is identical to the present one."
(emphasis supplied)
5. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Edelweiss Financial Services the order impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the two appeals are allowed.
(Order dictated in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
