Marketability is essential for excise liability; aluminium dross and skimming were not shown to be excisable goods.

Aluminium dross and skimming arising during aluminium manufacture were held not to be excisable goods because marketability was not established. The Tribunal found that mere inclusion in Heading 2620 did not by itself create excise liability, and the Revenue produced no evidence of an actual market or of proven end use for extraction of aluminium or manufacture of aluminium compounds. As a result, Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 did not assist the Revenue, and no central excise duty was payable on the product.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium dross and skimming arising during manufacture of aluminium were excisable and liable to central excise duty under Heading 2620.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and held that the product was not marketable and therefore did not constitute excisable goods. Mere inclusion of aluminium dross in Heading 2620 did not by itself establish excisability. The Tribunal also noted that no evidence of an actual market for aluminium dross and skimming, or of end use for extraction of aluminium or manufacture of aluminium compounds, had been produced. On that basis, Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 did not assist the Revenue.

Conclusion: The aluminium dross and skimming were not excisable goods and no central excise duty was payable; the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A product covered by a tariff entry is not liable to excise unless it is shown to be marketable and to answer the character of goods; aluminium dross and skimming were not so shown.

---