2024 (11) TMI 1177 - AT - Central Excise

Pattis and Pattas eligible for exemption under Notification 3/2005-CE despite cold rolling process only /2005

Abhinay Steel Versus CGST & Central Excise, Ahmedabad-South

Abhinay Steel Versus CGST & Central Excise, Ahmedabad-South - TMI 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.