TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. Enough evidence has not been produced to show that the appellant had indeed received much lesser amount then that recorded in their balance sheet. It is also not clear if the price was earlier fixed at ₹ 28,49,43,332/- and latter re-negotiated at ₹ 16,91,000,00/- or if the price was never fixed and for the first time it was negotiated at ₹ 16,91,000,00/- - thus, it is not clear that if appellant had received an amount less then what was recorded in the balance sheet for the year 2010-11. If the transaction was complete by way of book entry in the record of book of appellant and M/s Vodafone India Ltd at the time of finalization of the balance sheet of the year 2010-11. The factual position needs to be ascertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final transaction was record at ₹ 16.91 Crore in the month of March 2012 and therefore, they filed the claim of refund for the duty on difference value estimated in the month of March 2011/ finalized in the month of November 2011 and the revised value in the month of March 2011. Ld. Counsel argued that they have submitted all the documents with Original adjudicating authority, however, the same has not been considered. He further argued that the transaction declared in the balance sheet on 2010-11 was under the heading of un-billed Revenue, as no invoice for the said transaction was issued till 31.03.2011. Ld. Counsel produced a ledger of appellant for the year 2011-12 in respect of M/s Vodafone India Ltd. He pointed out that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 2011. It has been argued that by the Ld. Counsel that the price was re-negotiated and final invoice was ₹ 16,91,00,000/- and consequently, they are entitled to refund on the differential value. Ld. Counsel has shown the ledger. According to him, two entries relate to the payment made in respect of the service received in 2010-11. The said amount being 85,570,740/- and ₹ 82,294,830/- totalling into 16,78,65,570/-. Ld. AR has pointed out that immediately after these entries in the ledger, there are two other entries with identical documents date, posting date and description date, of amount of ₹ 117, 535, 680/- and ₹ 112,869,990/-. He pointed out that these entries also relates to the said transaction as apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. In the alternative if any price was fixed and there is no entry corresponding to ₹ 28,49,43,332/- in the book of M/s Vodafone India Ltd, then it would appear that the price was negotiated for the first time at ₹ 16,91,000,00/-. 5. In view of the above observation, it is not clear that if appellant had received an amount less then what was recorded in the balance sheet for the year 2010-11. If the transaction was complete by way of book entry in the record of book of appellant and M/s Vodafone India Ltd at the time of finalization of the balance sheet of the year 2010-11. In view of the above the factual position needs to be ascertained if the 1. Service was completed in the year 2010-11 or it continued in 2011-12 as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
