TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms decision on Cenvat credit misuse by BSNL, stresses evidence & penalties for false claims</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD - 2014 (34) S.T.R. 414 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax on Security Service received for Cell Phone Towers.2. Failure to provide documentary evidence for reversal of wrongly availed credit.3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act.4. Request for adjustment of demand from the refund due to the appellant.Analysis:Issue 1: Wrong Availment of Cenvat CreditThe original authority highlighted the issue of wrong availment of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.2,11,899 for Service Tax on Security Service received for Cell Phone Towers. It was noted that the service received was not directly related to the services provided by the appellant, leading to the demand for repayment of the wrongly availed credit.Issue 2: Lack of Documentary EvidenceM/s. BSNL claimed to have reversed the wrongly taken credit and participated in the Dispute Resolution Scheme by paying the interest amount demanded. However, subsequent audit revealed the lack of documentary evidence to support this claim, indicating a failure to provide proof of reversal or fresh payment. The inability to produce such evidence raised doubts regarding the initial claim made by M/s. BSNL.Issue 3: Imposition of PenaltiesThe original authority proposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act due to the false claim made by M/s. BSNL regarding the reversal of wrongly availed credit. The failure to maintain proper Cenvat Accounts also led to liability for penal action under Section 77 of the Act. The judgment upheld the imposition of penalties under Section 78 but set aside the additional penalty of Rs.2,000, emphasizing the seriousness of the false claim and the need for appropriate penalties.Issue 4: Adjustment of DemandM/s. BSNL requested to adjust the demand from the refund due to them, acknowledging the charges made in the show cause notice. The judgment highlighted the need to consider this adjustment only while issuing an order on their refund claim, indicating a specific process for addressing the financial aspect of the case.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with proper documentation, the consequences of making false claims under schemes, and the justification for imposing penalties in cases of fraud or misstatement. The decision highlighted the responsibility of public sector undertakings to uphold transparency and accuracy in financial matters, ultimately upholding the original authority's decision on the case.
TaxTMI 