ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. All these matters are being disposed off, after hearing both sides, by this common order, since the issue involved is same.
2. The issue is Revenue contends that:
(a) Since CCE(A) has agreed with the finding of Assistant Commissioner that clearance of broken bottles from BSR for re-melting for manufacture of fresh bottles amounts to remove of fully manufactured excisable goods, which could be made only on payment of duty.
(b) then the disagreement of ineligibility of these broken glass bottles to exemption under Notification No. 217/86 & 62/95 and holding that glass bottles have been used in the manufacture of glass bottles in the same factory should not be accepted.
(c) No permission was taken.
3. All bottles, which were defective, were removed from storage under cover of documents for being remade into fresh quality bottles and exemption benefits were claimed, is the plea of the respondent manufacturer. No manufacturer would break the bottles and re-melt them, he is in business to sell manufactured bottles, the defective bottles may not be saleable/marketable. They are to be remade to be marketable. Therefore, not being marketable, being defective, they are not glass bottles as understood under Excise levy. taking them from within the factory and remaking them will therefore not call for a fresh levy. The Central Board of Excise& Customs have, vide Order No. 263/45/89-CEX-8 dated 7.8.1989 held that rejected products if re-melted and remade are to be considered as inputs and if duty is levied, credit would be eligible. It would be Revenue Neutral exercise within the same factory. The exemption of duty on removals for remaking, when bottles are not defective, would be called for under the notifications as held by Ld CCE (Appeals). There is no merit in the appeals. The same are dismissed.
4. Cross objections stand disposed off.