AMCO BATTERIES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : -

(2.) LD . Advocate Shri V. Sridharan for the appellants has urged that the adjudicating authority has erroneously denied the benefit of Notification No. 186/84 -C.E., dated 1 -8 -1984 to such W and S by assuming that the appellants have admitted using non -duty -paid lead ingots by admitting that lead ingots partly used by them and (i) purchased from refiners and (ii) received back from the job -workers after conversion of W and S into ingots, are not duty paid since they do not take Modvat credit of duty paid on them. Ld. Advocate submits that the adjudicating authority has mis -understood the submission made by the appellants before the said authority. It was only in the context of not taking the Modvat credit that the appellants admitted their non -duty paid character. But actually the lead ingots of the two varieties i.e. (i) from refiners and (ii) from job -workers, are exempted from duty under Notification No. 37/81 (as amended).

(3.) FOR the period 2 -11 -1987 to 13 -8 -1989, ld. Advocate has urged that the appellant has taken Modvat credit of duty paid on imported lead ingots or on ingots obtained from MMTC. But they have not taken any Modvat credit on ingots obtained from refiners and job -workers, because these were exempted and no credit was, therefore, possible to be taken. The appellants would, therefore, be entitled to exemption under Notification 186/84 -C.E. in respect of scrap attributable to such ingots received from refiners and job -workers. Confirmation of duty on the entire quantity of scrap is not justifiable.