https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792466 Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as employment income because it was supported by employment agreements, assessed as salary, and subjected to TDS under Section 192; on that basis, the services fell within the employee-employer exclusion in Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and service tax was not sustainable. For non-whole-time directors, the demand raised at Salem could not stand where ST-3 returns showed tax had already been discharged from the Bhubaneswar office, there was no centralized registration, and the Revenue produced no contrary material showing receipt of the services at Salem. The common order confirming service tax, interest, and penalties was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792466 Remuneration paid to whole-time directors was treated as employment income because it was supported by employment agreements, assessed as salary, and subjected to TDS under Section 192; on that basis, the services fell within the employee-employer exclusion in Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and service tax was not sustainable. For non-whole-time directors, the demand raised at Salem could not stand where ST-3 returns showed tax had already been discharged from the Bhubaneswar office, there was no centralized registration, and the Revenue produced no contrary material showing receipt of the services at Salem. The common order confirming service tax, interest, and penalties was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792466