2024 (6) TMI 1544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....loration of mining of coal is denied. 2. The facts of the case are that he appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel products and located in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. The appellant has been engaged by M/s MMTC by a Letter of award dated 29.02.2008 for conducting pre-feasibility study and preparation of prefeasibility report for exploration of Gomia Saram Coking Coal Block in the Giridih district of the State of Jharkhand. 2.1 The appellant undertook the project of survey and exploration of Gomia Saram Coking Coal Block from MMTC in anticipation of obtaining fairly good quality coal for the purpose of usage of such coal in the manufacture of steel products in its plant. In this regard, the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. 2.5 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the said pre feasibility study of coal block is in relation to manufacture of final products as the said activity is in relation to their business. Therefore, the same is covered as "input service" in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2007. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Limited reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jenson & Nicholson (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida reported in 2014 (34) STR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment initiated an enquiry on the impugned issue vide a letter dated 04.11.2010 and after audit was also initiated in the year 2011, which the appellant replied and thereafter, the passage of two years, the present show-cause notice has been issued on 03.06.2013. Therefore, the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. In that circumstances, the penalty is not imposable. 4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. The short issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on the input services received by way of prefeasibility report for survey and exploration of mining of coal or not ? As the coal is an input ....