ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows :-
2. The respondents herein are manufacturers, inter alia, of glass bottles which after entry into RG 1 are found to be off specification and, are therefore, not purchased by their customers. The result is that the respondents herein have to remelt those glass bottles because of their non-marketability as having been discarded by the prospective customer and then make article of glass and glassware out of such discarded glass and glass articles. The respondents herein have availed the benefit of Notification-No. 52/86-C.E. (Sl. No. 8 of the table to the Notification). Condition envisaged against Sl. No. 8 is as follows :-
“If such glass and glassware are used within the factory of production for further manufacture of other glass and glassware falling under Heading Nos. 70.01 to 70.13 and 70.15”.
Benefit of Notification has been allowed under the aforesaid facts and circumstances by the lower appellate authorities.
3. It is against the aforesaid order that the Revenue has now filed this Appeal.
4. Ld. JDR, Shri V.M. Udhoji submits that if glass and glassware already moved to the bonded store room are not fit for marketing because of being off specifications; proper course for the respondents was to follow the procedure under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. The Notification 52/86-C.E. is not applicable to the aforesaid facts and circumstances inasmuch as that Notification envisage use of glass and glassware for further manufacture of other glass and glassware falling under Heading Nos. 70.01 to 70.13 and 70.15. The Notification does not envisage deliberate breaking of finished glass and glassware entered into RG 1 and in the Bonded Store Room. It is, therefore, urged that the benefit of Notification 52/86-C.E. has been wrongly allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submission of the ld. JDR. We observe that the glass and glassware, though entered in RG 1 and in the Bonded Store Room, has been found to be off specification and is not saleable. The only way to use it is through the process of remelting and manufacturing other glass and glassware. We observe that the benefit of the-Notification cannot be denied to the respondents in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Revenue merely wants to exercise a control over the activity of taking such discarded glass and glassware from the Bonded Store Room for the purpose of manufacturing other glass and glassware. Procedural control can be exercised by the Revenue in various many other ways. We do not find anything in the Notification with supports the view of the Revenue. Consequently, we reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue.