In light of the discussions made above we come to the conclusion that there may be circumstances, though arising very occasionally, where a service provider may not be in position to submit the CAFs by the due date for very good and valid reasons. In such situation, if the service provider informs the TERM Cell, before the due date of submission of CAFs about the reason for his inability to submit the CAFs, and shows materials substantiating the reason assigned by him, the TERM Cell should consider extending the time for production of CAFs suitably, depending upon the reason for non-submission within time. Further, in case the service provider does not submit the CAFs within time without assigning any reason but wishes to submit them beyond time, the TERM Cell should still examine the CAFs to check if those are in conformity with the guidelines, subjecting of course the service provider to some penalty for the procedural lapse. The DoT will be well advised to devise a scheme making a distinction between any procedural lapses by the service provider in the monthly audit process and the substantive non-compliance with the guidelines for filling up the CAF and the necessary documents (PoI and PoA) needed as enclosures to it. Needless to say, the penalty for procedural lapses would be at much lower rates than the penalty for substantive violations of the guidelines. Further, in case the service provider does not submit the CAFs without any good reason, the authorities should not close the case by simply imposing penalty for the non-submitted CAF. The service provider should be compelled to produce the CAF or to give reason for non-production. In any event all efforts should be made to ascertain the identity of the subscriber, either by means of the data base maintained by the service provider or, if necessary, even by contacting the service provider personally.”
