9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent as Input Service Distributor (ISD) and for providing services other than those listed in the negative list. The appellants had setup a wholly owned subsidiary in Dubai viz., Ultra Tech Cements Middle East Investments Limited (UCMEIL), through which the appellants have acquired stakes in operating companies in Middle East, such as M/s Star Cement LLC, RAK etc. During the disputed period, UCMEIL had availed foreign currency loans for the purpose of overseas acquisition. The appellants being the promoter of the said subsidiary company M/s UCMEIL, provided corporate guarantee to lender banks without affecting their cash flows. The appellants had also given a corporate guarantee, in respect of loans availed by Star Cement Co., LLC, RAK (subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax for the period prior to 01.07.2012 under the category of 'banking and other financial services' and post 01.07.2012 under the taxable head of 'service' defined under Section 65(B)(44) ibid. Accordingly, the department had issued the show cause notice dated 26.10.2017, seeking to recover service tax demand of Rs.33,57,64,719/- on the corporate guarantee given to the subsidiaries by the appellants. The matter was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate, Mumbai vide Order-in-Original NO. 207/VR/COMMR./ME/2018-19 dated 18.02.2019 (for short, refereed herein as 'the impugned order'), in confirming the entire demand along with interest proposed for recovery in the SCN dated 26.10.2017. Besid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of consideration received for provision of such service. In the present case, since there is no involvement of any commission amount in the form of consideration, the appellants cannot be saddled with the service tax liability as demanded in the impugned order. We find that the issue involved in the present dispute is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., 2022-VIL-998-CESTAT-MUMBAIService Tax, wherein it was held as under: - "7. The adjudicating authority has, rightly, declined to be guided by the decision of the Tribunal in re Kaveri Agri Care Pvt Ltd as it is settled law that interim orders do not offer themselves as binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable value' is a determination for computing the measure of the levy and the latter must follow the former." 4. We further find that the order of the Tribunal (supra) was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 17.03.2023 in dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. The relevant paragraph in the said judgement is extracted herein below: "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 taxabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
