Aluminium dross classification under excise tariff rejected as distinct from waste or scrap for Heading 26.20.

Aluminium dross arising during manufacture of ingots was examined for excisability and tariff classification. The settled position treated dross and skimmings as distinct from waste or scrap, even where they contain a small percentage of metal. On that reasoning, they could not be brought within ash and residues under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The consequence was that aluminium dross was not treated as excisable and not classifiable under Heading 26.20.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium dross arising during manufacture of ingots is excisable and classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Aluminium dross was found to arise in the course of manufacture, but it had already been treated by the settled legal position as distinct from waste or scrap. The reasoning accepted that dross and skimmings may contain a small percentage of metal, yet they do not fall in the same class as waste or scrap for excise purposes. In view of that settled position, the attempt to classify aluminium dross as ash and residues under Heading 26.20 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Aluminium dross was held not to be excisable and not classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in favour of the assessee.

---