2017 (9) TMI 1493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his case for the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l period in the instant case is financial year 2009-2010. 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, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09-2010 to 2012-2013, and the appellant declared in their statement 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 inc....