Excise duty refund on aluminium dross and skimmings cannot be denied by residuary classification where non-liability was already recognised.

Aluminium dross and skimmings were already treated in prior judicial position as not goods and, therefore, not exigible to excise duty; on that footing, the department's refusal to grant refund was unsustainable. The attempt to reject the refund claim by reclassifying the material under the residuary entry was also found untenable on the record, and the petitioners were held entitled to refund of the duty paid with interest from 1 January 1980 and costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium dross and skimmings were liable to excise duty and whether the refund claim could be rejected by classifying the goods under the residuary item.

Analysis: The petitioners had paid duty on aluminium dross and skimmings, but the prior judicial position had already declared that such material was not goods and was not exigible to excise duty. The department accepted the classification list recording non-liability, yet refused refund and later rejected the claim on the footing that the item fell under the residuary entry. That approach was found to be wholly unsustainable on the facts and law disclosed in the record.

Conclusion: The refund claim was wrongly rejected; the petitioners were entitled to refund of the excise duty paid, with interest from 1 January 1980 and costs.

---