Page 139 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] MEGA TRENDS ADVERTISING LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW 57
cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand service tax on corporate
guarantee provided by the appellant to various financial institution on behalf of
their holding company/associated enterprises and to appropriate the amount
already paid of service tax along with interest and to impose penalty on account
of non-payment of service tax on preferential location charges. The matter was
adjudicated, demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penal-
ties were also imposed. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. Heard the parties.
4. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not received any consid-
eration either from the financial institutions or from their associates for provid-
ing corporate guarantee, in that circumstances, no service tax is payable by the
appellant. Moreover, the demand raised in the show cause notices are on the ba-
sis of assumption and presumption presuming that their associates have received
the loan facilities from the financial institution at lower rate, therefore, the differ-
ential 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 appel-
lant to various banks/financial institutions on behalf of their holding company/
associate enterprises for their loan or overdraft facility under Banking and Finan-
cial Institutions after or before 1-7-2012.
5. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order qua demand of ser-
vice tax on corporate guarantee provided by the appellant. We further take note
of the fact that for the charges leviable on account of prime location charges etc.,
the appellant has already paid service tax along with interest before issuance of
the show cause notice. Therefore, we hold that in terms of Section 73(3) of the
Act, the proceedings were not required to be initiated against the appellant,
therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. Accordingly, the im-
pugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 57 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
MEGA TRENDS ADVERTISING LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW
Final Order No. 70965/2019, dated 16-5-2019 in Appeal No. ST/599/2012
Advertising services - Activity of printing of flags and glow-sign
boards with advertising materials such as cloth, PVC sheet, etc., as per design
provided by clients and supplying same to them, not taxable under category of
Advertising services - Mere charging of Service Tax by some customers who
have not disputed same, would not make the assessee’s activity as taxable -
Sections 65(3) and 65(105)(e) of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 4, 5]
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  139