9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that M/s India Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") is engaged in the manufacture of motorcycles falling under heading 87112029 of the CETA, 1985. The appellant is a subsidiary company of M/s Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. Japan (hereinafter referred to as the "Holding Company"). During the period 01/04/2007, to 31/03/2012, certain employees of the Holding Company where appointed by the Appellant Company as its employees. 3. The appellant paid salary to such expatriates as employees and deducted the income tax from such salary. Such TDS was deposited with the Indian Income Tax Department. The appellant was also depositing certain amount towards social security benefit like Employees Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Holding Company under reverse charge mechanism in respect of expenses incurred under different heads for expatriate employees and imposition of penalties. 6. A reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the appellant contesting that the appellant and such expatriates had an employer - employee relationship and therefore, no service tax was payable in respect of salary paid to such expatriate. It was also submitted that no payment was made to the Holding Company, therefore no consideration was paid to the Holding Company on which service tax can be levied. It was also submitted that the reimbursement expenses were not subject to service tax. Further, it was submitted that the demand raised was erroneous as the amount considered for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I 2014 (34) STR 135 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Noida 2014 (35) STR 94 (Tri.-Del.) which has been subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CCE vs Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (37) STR 62 (All.). Further, he also placed reliance on Airbus Group India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi 2016 (45) STR 120 (Tri.-Del.) and Bain & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi 2014 (35) STR 553 (Tri.-Del.). 9. Heard the learned DR, who has relied on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that expatriates working under the appellant are their employees and there is an employer - employee rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
