9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. H.V. Ghirnikar, CA Present for the Respondent: Mr. Dharam Singh, D.R. Per: S.K. Mohanty The issue involved in both these appeals is identical and accordingly, the same are taken up for hearing together and a common order is being passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in producing coal through its open cast coal mines for captive use in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The appellant removes mined coal to its steel plant on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty. The appellant avails cenvat credit of service tax paid on various taxable services used in or in relation to escavation/ production of coal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Tribunal in the case of Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2011 (23) STR 661 (Tri.- Mum.) and C. Metric Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 2012 (28) STR 460 (Tri.- Ahmd.) to submit that input services received prior to registration cannot be denied for cenvat benefit since receipt and use of such service for the intended purpose has not been specifically denied by the authorities. With regard to services utilized for study of fly ash dumping, the submissions of the Consultant are that the said services are used in or in relation to the manufacture of coal and unless the fly ash is dumped for back filling of coal mines, the production of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, which is evident from the impugned order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. Thus, suppression, mis-statement, etc. cannot be leveled against the appellant, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuance of the show cause notice. In this context, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. C.C.E., 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) have held that when the facts are known to the Department, issuance of show cause notice should be confined to the normal period of limitation and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 7. In view of above, after setting aside the impugned orders, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
