Order Date: 27 February 2023

Parties: M/s. Cable Vision vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

Facts – 

• The appellant, M/s. Cable Vision was issued an SCN alleging that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax along with applicable interest and penalty. It appears that the appellant filed its reply and participated in the adjudication proceedings as well.
• The appellant had claimed CENVAT Credit to the extent of Rs.34,31,074/-, but however, the lower authority has allowed input Service Tax credit to the extent of Rs.4,56,032/-.
• It is observed that certain invoices were computer generated, which did not have the signature.

Issue – 

• Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in denying the CENVAT Credit for the reason that some of the invoices were without signature and that in certain cases, conditions under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were not fulfilled?
• Whether the demand of Service Tax was correct on the link advance received? and

Orders – 

• The Tribunal is of the view that the input Service Tax credit cannot be denied just because computer-generated invoices or photocopies of invoices were produced. Also directed the authority to allow the appellant’s claim of input Service Tax credit wherever computer-generated invoices and photocopies of the same were produced in support.
• Various Benches of the CESTAT have taken a consistent view that in respect of computer generated invoices, signature was not required and consequently, have directed the authorities not to deny the input Service Tax credit.
• The Court observed that the appellant has claimed as a refundable deposit, but they have not made any efforts to place on record any supporting documents. Hence, it was held that the authorities would not interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this ground of the appeal stands dismissed.
• The Court stated that the appellant had entertained a bona fide doubt as to the Service Tax liability and there is also no finding that the appellant had intentionally evaded the payment of Service Tax. Hence the impugned order to this extent is set aside and this ground of the appeal is allowed.