Soapstock as by-product, not waste, denied exemption where no proof of negligible value was shown.

Soapstock arising during edible oil refining was treated as a by-product, not waste, because unintended emergence alone does not make material discardable. It is regarded as waste only where it has no value or negligible value and is intended to be thrown away. On the record, that condition was not established for the soapstock in question, so the exemption under the relevant notification was unavailable and the duty demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether soapstock arising during refining of edible oil was a waste or by-product eligible for exemption, and whether duty demand based on withdrawal of exemption was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal was decided by following the Tribunal's earlier ruling, as upheld by the Supreme Court, that soapstock emerging in the course of refining is a by-product and not waste merely because it is unintended. Such material is treated as waste only if it is shown to be of no value or negligible value and intended to be discarded. The record did not establish that the soapstock in question had no value or negligible value, and the exemption claimed under the relevant notification was therefore not available.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

---