Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 22 February, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application E/S/1231/11 in Appeal No. E/1073/11
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 72-73/04-05/V/2011/COMMR/KS dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Purnima L.,Advocate for the appellant Shri Y.K. Agarwal, (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 22.02.2012 Date of decision : 22.02.2012 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant are in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order denial of input service credit which were availed by them in the manufacturing of tractors and their parts as the tractors are falling under heading 87.1 which are fully exempted, same has been exported by the appellant in bond.
2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the case is squarely covered by the Hon'ble High Court in Repro India Ltd. 2007-TIOL-795-HC-BOM and in their own case for the earlier period by this Tribunal reported in 2010-TIOL-163-CESTAT-MUM. Therefore issue is no more res integra and appellant are entitled to availing the CENVAT credit on input service availed by them in the manufacturing of tractors which are exempted from duty and same were exported under bond.
3. On the other hand, Shri Y.K. Agarwal, Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, we find that issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. (supra) and the same order has been accepted by the department. Thereafter in appellants own case this Tribunal had passed the order on 17.12.2009 which was also accepted by the department and no appeal has been preferred against the order. In that view, we are of the opinion that the appeal itself can be disposed of but ld. AR says that he has no mandate for disposal of the appeal, so only stay application be heard.
5. As the issue has attained finality, therefore nothing survives in the matter. Thereafter after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we allow the appeal holding that appellants are entitled for availing input service credit for manufacturing of tractors which are fully exempted but exported under bond.
6. Stay application and appeal disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 3