TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the manufacture of electric accumulators (automobile batteries) falling under Chapter 8507 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing the benefit of cenvat credit of duty paid on raw materials and capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. The respondents were receiving rejected batteries from their customers under the warranty claim, for the purpose of remaking the same in terms of the Erstwhile Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002. On receipt of the said rejected batteries, the same were being sent to their smelter job worker for separation of plastic container and lead materials and refining of lead contents contained in the said batteries under the cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence the present appeals. 7. After hearing both the sides we find that the demand in respect of plastic containers scrap and lead scrap was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under: I find that the appellants were receiving lead ingots manufactured from abstracted lead during slitting of rejected batteries manually by the job worker. I find that the appellants were using the lead ingots for remaking of batteries. I find that the Department has demanded duty on plastic containers and lead scrap emerging during the process of abstracting lead from rejected batteries at the job worker premises. I find that the rejected batteries are slit and cut open by job worker by breaking the plastic container & lead to ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004(173) ELT 26 (Tri. Mumbai) since job worker is the manufacturer of such scrap, the demand & penalty on the appellants on this score cannot be sustained. The said demand on the appellants is therefore set aside. I therefore hold that there is no question of demand of duty on non receipt of remanent plastic containers & lead by the appellants as waste & scrap which were not returned to them. 8. As against the above, the Revenue has again reiterated the reasons adopted in the show cause notice by submitting that the rejected batteries was an input and as such the entire goods including the plastic scrap and lead scrap generated at the job worker s factory should have been returned by them to the respondent. However there is no grou....