(1.) THE appellant, M/s. Welspun Maxsteel Ltd. earlier known as Vikram Ispat, has filed the present appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. YDB/82/RGD/2011, dated 31 -1 -2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai -II. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Sponge Iron. The appellant imports certain inputs for the manufacture through Port for which Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the port services is availed. The appellant also provides port services for port handling to other parties, as output services and paid Service Tax for port services to the Revenue. The appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department and was also registered subsequently with Service Tax Department w.e.f. 12 -1 -2004. A show cause notice was issued dated 1 -10 -2008 proposing to disallow Cenvat credit availed by the appellant for the input services amounting to Rs. 18,42,948/ - availed during the period October, 2003 to September, 2004 when the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 came into effect. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant has wrongly availed the input credit and accordingly, it was recoverable under the Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with provisions of Section 23(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also penalty was proposed to be levied under Section 78 read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant had contested the show cause notice both on merits and on limitation. Vide Order -in -Original dated 30 -10 -2009, the proposed disallowance of Cenvat credit was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has upheld the disallowance of credit recording the finding that the appellant have imported its own raw material and finished goods. The credit pertain only to the period, Service Tax Rules, 2002 were applicable, as credit of input service was available only to output service provider and the appellant was not providing port services. The appellant not being service provider was not eligible to take Cenvat credit of the input services. Further, the input credit so taken was utilized by the appellant for payment of excise duty on the finished goods is not proper under Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as the Cenvat credit taken by the appellant for the input service was not proper. Being aggrieved the appellant have preferred the appeal before this Tribunal.
(2.) THE appellant has drawn my attention to Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, which reads as under: - -