- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is from the judgment of the division bench of the Bombay High court allowing the writ appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The question herein pertains to the interpretation of Notification No. 33 of 1981, dated 1/03/1981. The Notification reads as follows : "Exemptions to waste or scrap of copper, zinc, aluminium and lead. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1 of rule 8 of the central Excise Rules, 1944, the central government hereby exempts waste or scrap of copper, zinc, aluminium and lead, falling under Item Numbers 26a, 26b, 27 and 27a, respectively, of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to condition that :- (A) such waste or scrap are manufactured from copper, zinc, aluminium or lead, falling under Item Numbers 26a, 26b, 27 and 27a respectively, of the said First Schedule on which appropriate amount of duty of excise, or, as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975 has already been paid; or (B) such waste or scrap arise from products falling under any Item numbers of the said First Schedule other than Item Numbers 26a, 26b, 27 and 27a manufactured from the said copper, zinc, aluminium or lead. "
(3.) The question is whether the requirement in clause (a) , viz. , that the metal (lead in this case) should be duty paid has to be read into clause (b) as well. Revenue says, it should be so read. The High court has rejected that contention.;