9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers including the service of directors of company to their company. The records of the appellant was audited by the audit officers of D.G. Audit, Raipur for the period April 2012 to March 2013 that the appellant has not paid service tax on the amount paid to Directors as 'Directors Remuneration' against services given by the Directors to the notice, as provided under Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, as amended, vide Notification No. 45/2012- Service Tax dated 7th August, 2012. By Virtue of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 45/2012 dated 07.08.2012 the appellant is liable to pay service tax of Rs.3,10,44,731/- under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the said amount of Rs.25,11,70,966/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to them was in the nature of 'salary' on which no service tax was payable. The appellant never paid any additional sitting fee to the executive directors. Further, the appellant also had nonexecutive directors/independent directors or nominee directors, who did not have any executive role in the company. They were only responsible for improving the corporate credibility and governance standards. These non-executive directors/independent directors were only paid the sitting fee, on which service tax liability of Rs.1,38,432/- has been discharged by appellant under Reverse Charge Mechanism from 07.08.2012 in Financial Year 2012-13 in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 amended by Notification No. 45/2012-ST dated 07.08.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authorities below have confirmed the demand holding that there is no documentary evidence produced in support of the said submission. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Go Bindas Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida, 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 397 (Tri.-All.) (ii) Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad, reported 2019 (8) TMI 320 - CESTAT Allahabad (iii) Prakash Road Lines Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Allahabad reported as 2022-TIOL- 928-CESTAT-ALL (iv) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur reported as 2021 (9) TMI 859 - CESTAT NEW DELHI 3.3 It is further submitted that no service tax is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions and impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire records, we observe and hold as follows: 4.1 We have observed that the primary issue to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the amount in question was given to the whole time directors of the appellant for them being the employees of the appellant. From the findings as in the order under challenge and impressed upon by learned Departmental Representative, it is coming as an undisputed fact that the amount in question is an amount paid to whole time Directors and that the amount of remuneration which has been paid to non-whole time directors, the service tax liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason that once there is no denial about certain directors to be the whole time directors/the employees of the appellant. Whatever remuneration paid to them even if i.e. over and above the amount of salary i.e. the remuneration arising out of the relationship of employer and employee. As already discussed above, the statute itself excludes that relationship from the scope of service. We hold that taxability has wrongly been fastened upon the appellants. 4.3 We further observe that department vide their own Circular bearing No. 24/2012 dated 09.08.2012 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs clarified that sitting fee/commission paid to nonwhole time directors is liable to service tax. It has no applicability on any amount of remuneration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be no possibility of the figures in both the documents to match. The findings arrived upon after comparison of the two documents are nothing but are held to be the outcome of presumption. Hence are not sustainable. 4.5 Finally, we observe that the demand in question has been raised vide show cause notice dated 06.05.2016 vide which the demand for the period from April, 2012 to March, 2015 has been alleged. There is no denial that appellant was duly discharging their tax liability as far as non-whole time directors are concerned. There is also no denial that the ST-3 returns containing all requisite details were being duly filed by the appellant. The alleged demand has already been held non-sustainable. In these circumstances, we find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
