<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 1196 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783656</link>
    <description>Remuneration paid to directors/chairman was examined to determine whether it constituted &quot;salary&quot; in an employer-employee relationship, excluded from &quot;service&quot; under s. 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, or consideration for a taxable service under RCM. As the payments were subjected to TDS under s. 192 of the Income-tax Act and the directors functioned as employees, the Tribunal held the amounts were salary and not exigible to service tax; the demand under RCM was set aside. Since RCM under Notif. 30/2012-ST applies only where a taxable service is received, and none existed, RCM was held inapplicable; the demand failed. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1196 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783656</link>
      <description>Remuneration paid to directors/chairman was examined to determine whether it constituted &quot;salary&quot; in an employer-employee relationship, excluded from &quot;service&quot; under s. 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, or consideration for a taxable service under RCM. As the payments were subjected to TDS under s. 192 of the Income-tax Act and the directors functioned as employees, the Tribunal held the amounts were salary and not exigible to service tax; the demand under RCM was set aside. Since RCM under Notif. 30/2012-ST applies only where a taxable service is received, and none existed, RCM was held inapplicable; the demand failed. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>