9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the remuneration that a company could pay in a year when it did not make adequate profits etc. - taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India who does not have any office in India, recipient of such service could not be held liable to service tax prior to 1.1.2005 - In the instant case the material period is prior to 1.1.2005. In view of the above judicial authorities the impugned demand and interest is not sustainable in law. Consequently the penalty also cannot be sustained - S/96/2007 - 704/2009 - Dated:- 10-6-2009 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Respondent. [Order]. - M/s. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. Madurai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies Act did not apply to the said payment. The appellants have argued that in view of this clarification the remuneration paid to Shri Gochi Mori could not be validly subjected to service tax treating the same as taxable value. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground of limitation. The Show Cause Notice basic to the proceedings did not allege fraud, suppression of fact, willful mis-statement etc. on the part of the appellants as the reason for the non-payment of service tax . The authorities had incorrectly held that the relevant Section 73 as it existed during the material time did not require existence of such ingredients to invoke longer period of limitation. Section 73 as it existed at the time of issue of Show Cause Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 198 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956. These provisions dealt with remuneration admissible to a manager, whole time technical director, part-time technical director and limitations to the remuneration that a company could pay in a year when it did not make adequate profits etc. In terms of this clarification the remuneration paid by the appellant-company cannot be subjected to service tax, the same being director's remuneration. This clarification does not reliably settle the dispute as to whether the remuneration is towards service rendered subject to levy of tax in terms of Section 66 of the Act. The impugned demand has been raised in terms of sub-clause (iv) of Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which provides that in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
