JSW STEEL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Rs. 10,96,41,251/ - has been confirmed against them on account of wrongful availment of Cenvat credit along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. The brief facts of the case are that appellant imported H.R. Carbon Steel Plates through Bill of Entry No. 829881, dated 19 -3 -2008 and 838049, dated 5 -5 -2008, and availed Cenvat credit of the CVD, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess. The allegation of the Revenue is that the impugned goods are neither their inputs nor capital goods, and these goods are the finished goods, therefore, the appellant has purchased the said goods for their trading activity and no manufacturing activities are involved in the said goods. As the appellant has not taken necessary permission to bring the said goods in their premises for trading purpose, therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on the said goods. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to deny the Cenvat credit on the said goods along with interest and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated and impugned order was passed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us.

(2.) SHRI M.H. Patil, ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared and submits that in this case the appellant is manufacturer of HR MS Plates. The appellant imported the said goods for rolling purpose to reduce the thickness of the same and thereafter to clear in the market, after doing the process of manufacturing after importation of the said goods. The appellant was not able to process the goods for quality reasons/the process was not viable. The appellant decided to clear the said goods on payment of duty under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by reversing the Cenvat credit availed on the said goods. It is submitted that quantity of 8.876 MTs was issued for conversion and same has been cleared on payment of duty rest of the goods were cleared as such. It is also submitted that as they have cleared the goods, as such they are not required to pay duty at all and the intention of the appellant was not to do any trading activity therefore no permission was required. Hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside and appeal be allowed.

(3.) HEARD both sides considered the submissions.