2023 (3) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Shri R. Rajaraman, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue. We have gone through the documents placed on record as also the various decisions / orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the issues to be decided are:- (1) 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? (2) Whether the demand of Service Tax was correct on the link advance received? and (3) Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in levying penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994? 4. A Show Cause Notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty had erred in charging Service Tax on the above. 7. Per contra, the Learned Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue has relied on the findings of the lower authority and would also contend that though the appellant had made several claims, such claims were never substantiated by producing supporting documents and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority was correct in allowing the partial CENVAT Credit in support of which documents were produced. 8. We have seen from the records as well as the contentions of the Learned Consultant for the appellant that 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/-. 9.1 It is obse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the nature of clerical mistakes, which were curable. 9.3.2 The Adjudicating Authority has, in the impugned Order-in-Original, clearly brought out on record that some of the invoices had different names altogether, which did not even contain the name of the appellant and when the same was brought to the notice of the appellant, the appellant did not explain; and that in respect of certain other invoices, the same were issued on 03.04.2011 for the services provided during September 2009 to June 2010. In respect of some of the invoices, the Adjudicating Authority has observed that the same were computer generated, which did not contain any signature/s and that some of the invoices were photocopies. 9.3.3 We find that though an assessee ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their arguments. Hence, we do not feel it proper to interfere with the findings of the lower authority and consequently, this ground of the appeal stands dismissed. 11. The last issue relates to the penalty levied under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We find 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. Moreover, from the facts which have been brought on record, there is no scope for any fraud or intent to evade the payment of Service Tax. Hence, we deem it proper to delete the penalty levied under Section 78 ibid. by invoking the provisions of Section 80 ibid. and accordingly, the impugned order....