9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.BSNL. The issue involved in this case is wrong availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs.2,11,899/-, being the amount of Service Tax paid on Security Service received for the Cell Phone Towers during the period from 1.4.05 to 31.12.06. As M/s.BSNL, Nagercoil are not providing Cellular Service and M/s.BSNL, Trichy are providing Cell phone Service, service received for providing security to Cell Phone Towers is not input service for the landline service being provided by M/s.BSNL. When this issue was raised by the Audit Officers during the year 2007, M/s.BSNL have accepted the lapse and claimed that they have reversed the wrong credit of Rs.2,11,899/-. As M/s.BSNL have not paid the interest for the belated reversal of wrong availed credit, vide th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the Section 75 of the Act. I further hold that the interest amount of Rs.5,780/- already paid by them, as demanded under this office O-I-O No.64 dt. 18.2.08, is to be adjusted while paying interest under this order. In this case, it has been proved as well as admitted by M/s.BSNL, that they have made a false claim about the reversal of the wrongly availed credit of Rs.2,11,899/-. But for the subsequent Audit conducted by the officers, this short payment would not have seen the light of the day. Hence, I further hold that M/s.BSNL are liable for penal action under Section 78 of the Act and Rule 15 (3) of the Rules. As I propose to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Further as M/s.BSNL have failed to keep their Cenvat Accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly go to show that M/s.BSNL made a blatantly wrong claim under the Dispute Resolution Scheme that they have reversed the wrongly taken credit of Rs.2,11,899/-, and the dispute resolution they sought by making payment of the interest amount alone amounts to fraud, duplicity and misstatement which is not expected from a Public Sector Undertaking. In such a case, the lower appellate authority was totally unjustified in holding the demand as time-barred without examining the facts of the case as brought out by the original authority. Hence the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the Order-in-Original is restored both in regard to demand of tax and in regard to imposition of equal penalty. In respect of wrong availment of inadmissible cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
