TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ST/ADJN/BHWN/CGST & CX/Kol-South/2020-21 dated 24.03.2021. 2. The issues involved in the present appeal are summarized in the following table: - Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Ground 1. Service Tax on Manpower Supply Services from M/s. Sonu Services under RCM 1,35,000/- Service provider had already charged and paid service tax, but department demands again under RCM 2. Service Tax on Director's Remuneration (Mr. Dipak Kumar Singh) under RCM 1,49,411/- Alleged that director not full-time employee as having income from other sources. Total Service tax demand 2,84,411/- 3. Reversal of CENVAT Credit M/s. Sonu on Services invoices 1,44,431/- Credit denied on ground t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the invoices raised by them and deposited the same with the Government exchequer. From the evidences submitted by the appellant, I find that service tax has been collected and paid by the service provider M/s. Sonu Services, even though legally service receiver is liable to pay service tax on RCM basis. On such services. However, I observe that demanding service tax again from the recipient under RCM would amount to double taxation. This view has been held by Tribunal Bangalore in the case of Kerala Ceramics Ltd. v. CCE 2024 (5) TMI 868 CESTAT Bangalore. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 6. We find that as per the letter furnished by M/s. Devi Transporters, they have certified that they have not avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has been discharged by them and they had also mentioned their Service Tax registration number and PAN number in their certificates. As against such documentary evidences, the first appellate authority's findings as to no authentic documentary evidence has been produced, seems to be incorrect. Since the certificates clearly indicate the Service Tax registration number, the least that could have been expected from the Revenue, was to call for the details from the concerned jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. Having not done, the lower authorities cannot shift the entire blame on the appellants for having not produced any authentic documentary evidence. 9. I find that the decision of this Bench in the cases Navyug Alloys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1994. As per the sub clause (b) of sub-Section (44) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that provision of any service by an employee to the employer during the course of his employment does not fall under the definition of service. In the present case, I find that the Directors to whom the salary was paid by the appellant are employees of the Company. Thus, I find that the Directors, in the capacity of employees provided service to the employer i.e. present appellant Company. Therefore, I hold that the service provided by the Directors to the appellant Company, is in the course of their employment is out of the purview of service in terms of Section 65B(44) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994. 13.1. I also find that CBEC ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consultant is advisory service and not the actual performance of the management function. The payments made by Companies, to Directors cannot be termed as payments for providing management consultancy service. Therefore, it is clarified that the amount paid to Directors (Whole-time or Independent) is not chargeable to service tax under the category 'Management Consultancy service'. However, in case such directors provide any advice or consultancy to the company, for which they are being compensated separately, such service would become chargeable to service tax. 3. In view of the above, it is clarified that remunerations paid to Managing Director / Directors of companies whether whole-time or Independent when being compens....