https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82059 Lead waste and scrap arising as manufacturing remnants of electric storage batteries, when sent to job-workers for reconversion into ingots, were treated as removal of inputs for reconditioning under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The separate duty-clearance regime under Rule 57F(4) therefore did not apply, and the duty demand on clearance of the scrap could not be sustained. Because the substantive duty liability failed, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q also lacked a legal foundation and was not sustainable. The reasoning relied on the nature of the scrap as input remnants and on comparable treatment reflected in the Board's circular for similar scrap. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:33:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82059 Lead waste and scrap arising as manufacturing remnants of electric storage batteries, when sent to job-workers for reconversion into ingots, were treated as removal of inputs for reconditioning under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The separate duty-clearance regime under Rule 57F(4) therefore did not apply, and the duty demand on clearance of the scrap could not be sustained. Because the substantive duty liability failed, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q also lacked a legal foundation and was not sustainable. The reasoning relied on the nature of the scrap as input remnants and on comparable treatment reflected in the Board's circular for similar scrap. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82059