2024 (11) TMI 1177 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for Exemption N/N. 3/2005-CE (amended by Notification 12/2012-serial No. 203) in respect of final product namely Pattis and Pattas - denial of exemption on the ground that as per the description of goods the Pattis and Pattas when subjected to any process other than cold rolling, therefore, in order to be eligible for exemption the Pattis and Pattas manufactured by the appellant must undergo any process other than cold rolling - when the description of goods in the exemption entry to be a condition that the Pattis and Pattas should be subjected to any process other than cold rolling and in absence of any process whether the appellant is eligible for exemption? HELD THAT - This issue has been clarified by the Board whereby it was clarified that even if no process is carried out on Pattis and Pattas, the exemption is available. This issue has been considered in detail relying on the said Circular in case of MULTI METAL INDUSTRIES; MORE METAL INDUSTRIES HAJARILAL RAMCHANDRA SHARMA VERSUS C.C., AHMEDABAD 2023 (10) TMI 1457 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that ' In the present case the Hot Rolling process is admittedly the process which is taken place prior to the process of cold rolling, therefore, in view of the clarification, the Hot Rolled Pattas and Pattis are clearly covered under the Notification No 12/.2012- CE dated 17.03.2012 under Sr. No. 203.' From the above decision, it can be seen that very identical issue involved in the present case as well in the case cited above. Therefore, the ratio of the above judgment is directly applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order in the assessee s appeals are set aside and impugned order in the Revenue s appeal is uphed. Assessee s appeals are allowed. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE (amended by Notification 12/2012-serial No. 203) for final product Pattis and Pattas.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE for the final product Pattis and Pattas. The revenue contends that the exemption is not applicable as the goods must undergo a process other than cold rolling to qualify. The crux of the matter lies in whether the absence of any further process beyond cold rolling disqualifies the assessee from the exemption.

The Tribunal considered a similar issue in the case of Multi Metal Industries and ruled in favor of the assessee based on a Board circular clarifying that even if no additional process is conducted on the goods, the exemption remains valid. This precedent played a significant role in the current judgment.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant exemption entry, particularly Sr. No. 203 of Notification No. 12/2012, which specifies that the exemption applies to Pattis and Pattas not subjected to cold rolling. The clarification from the Central Board of Excise and Customs emphasized that all processes before cold rolling are eligible for exemption under this notification, including hot rolling of Stainless Steel flats into Pattis and Pattas.

The judgment highlighted that the hot rolling process, which precedes cold rolling, makes the Hot Rolled Pattas and Pattis eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012. It also addressed the issue of imposing separate penalties on partners of a firm, citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support the argument against double jeopardy.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant met the legal criteria for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (203), rendering the demand for excise duty unsustainable. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed, while the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the judgment established the eligibility of the assessee for exemption under the relevant notification based on the interpretation of the exemption entry and relevant clarifications. The decision relied on previous precedents and legal principles to support the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the exemption, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's appeals.