Manufacturing waste is not excisable goods where dross and skimmings do not emerge as a new and different article.

Aluminium dross and skimmings arising during manufacture of aluminium rods were treated as residual waste, not as new and different articles brought into existence by transformation. Prior Tribunal decisions on identical facts had already held that such material is merely scum thrown out in the manufacturing process and therefore does not qualify as excisable goods. In the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court, that settled view was followed. The material was accordingly held not liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium dross and skimmings arising in the manufacture of aluminium rods from aluminium ingots are excisable goods chargeable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The dispute was already covered by earlier Tribunal decisions, including the respondent's own case and another decision on identical facts. Those decisions held that dross and skimmings are merely scum thrown out in the manufacturing process and do not amount to a new and different article on transformation. In the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court, the earlier view was followed and no reason was found to depart from it.

Conclusion: Aluminium dross and skimmings are not excisable goods liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Residual waste or scum arising during manufacture does not become excisable unless it emerges as a new and different article on transformation.

---