9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are correct or otherwise. 4. Appellant in this case had entered into an agreement with a Nigerian firm for supply of Technical Knowhow for manufacture of asbestos/non-asbestos cement products; the Nigerian firm was to pay a consideration to appellant as per the agreement. On inspection of the records, it was noticed that appellant had not discharged the service tax liability (including cesses) for the consideration received from such a Nigerian Firm for the period April, 2009 to March, 2010. A show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period and the adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised along with interest. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the First Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. There is no estoppels on the department for proposing demands on an issue for a subsequent period. The notice lists the final audit reports dated 28.03.2013 and 25.02.2014 at Para 14(i) as relied upon in the proceedings. It is therefore clear that the notice relies upon findings unearthed during a departmental audit intervention, in raising the proposals; and is based on records consistent with the explanation specified record under Section 73(4A), then in vogue. The notice dated 09.09.2014 has been issued when the provisions of Section 73(4A) was in vogue; and that provision, specific to demands arising from departmental interventions, support the proposals for the material period, notwithstanding establishment of gross violations. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement of facts that they have initiated a joint venture with the Nigerian firm. The amounts for which FIRC was produced have been deducted from the demand quantification. The factum of export of service has been conceded by the lower authority, and the only ground for confirming the tax demand is that a portion was NOT received in convertible foreign exchange. I have carefully considered the contentions. Assuming without admitting that a tax liability exists at the appellant s hands, for the period prior to 01.04.2011, the liability arises on receipt basis alone; and the irrefutable fact is that the amount pending receipt was booked as receivable in the final accounts; and no income is booked as received. Under the law in force at that po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restored for denovo consideration by the lower authority, after proper verification of facts and passing an order afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. All issues are open; and the appellant shall co-operate in the denovo proceedings with all the evidence they intend to rely upon. The lower authority is requested to conclude the denovo proceedings no later than 31.01.2017. I rely on the rulings pronounced in Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Goel International Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (39) S.T.R. 330 (Tri. Del.); and Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Associated Hotels Ltd., 2015 (37) S.T.R. 723 (Guj.), in ordering the remand. 8. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is correct and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
