Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. ...

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 168-170/2012 dated 04/07/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore  560 001 Appellant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. 122-E, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560 099 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Jagdish, DR For the Appellant Mr. N. Anand, Advocate No. 152, Race Course Road Bangalore  560 001 For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 08/10/2015 Date of Decision: 08/10/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order Nos. 22028-22030 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

All the three appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondents appeal, are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and the issue involved is identical.

2. As per facts on record the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Battery Operated Cars i.e. Electric vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Prior to 01.03.2008 the said cars attracted central excise duty but w.e.f 01.03.2008 the same became exempted from payment of central excise duty. During the period from July 2009 to February 2010 the appellant exported the cars in question and consequently claimed refund of accumulated modvat credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

3. The refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority after issuance of show-cause notices, and after following the due adjudication procedure on the ground that inasmuch as their final product, on account of being exported, was exempted and as such the appellant was not entitled to the cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. Accordingly they are not entitled for the refund of the same.

4. On an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents and by following the number of decisions, held that the assessee is entitled to refund claim. He relied upon the following decisions.

1) Repro India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.)]

2) CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. [2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.)]

5. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not referred as to why the said decisions of the Honble High Courts are not applicable to the facts of the present case. They have again reiterated their stand that the final product was exempted and as such the assessee was not entitled to the refund of cenvat credit. It also stands submitted by the Revenue that the final product became exempted from 01.03.2008 and there were other various duties like National Calamity Contingent duty, Education cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess which the appellant was required to pay. They have paid the duties out of the accumulated cenvat credit and as such they were in a position to use the same.

6. I find no merits in the above reasoning of the Revenue. The issue as to whether the unutilized accumulated credit can be refunded to the assessee in case of exports made by them stands fully and finally decided in favour of the assessee by the above referred decisions. I find no infirmity in the views adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the Revenues appeals are rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss