Residue from manufacture not excisable unless a new and distinct commodity emerges; saleability alone is insufficient.

Zinc dross and flux skimming, arising as residues during galvanisation or manufacturing, are not excisable goods unless the Revenue proves that a manufacture has produced a new and distinct commodity with a different name, character or use. Mere saleability or the presence of recoverable metal is insufficient to establish excisability. The Court followed earlier rulings that such dross and skimmings are not manufactured goods, and held that the tariff change did not create a legal fiction treating them as goods merely because they fall within a tariff heading. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether zinc dross and flux skimming are excisable goods liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The material showed that zinc dross and flux skimming arise during the galvanisation or manufacturing process, but that circumstance by itself does not establish manufacture. Mere saleability or presence of recoverable metal is insufficient to make an article excisable. To attract duty, the Revenue had to show that the process resulted in a new and different product having a distinct name, character or use. The earlier decisions holding that dross and skimmings are not manufactured excisable goods were followed, and the tariff change did not create a legal fiction treating such residues as goods merely because they fell within a tariff heading.

Conclusion: Zinc dross and flux skimming are not excisable goods and the appeal fails.

Ratio Decidendi: An article arising as a residue in manufacture is not excisable unless the Revenue proves a manufacture that brings into existence a new and distinct commodity with marketability alone being insufficient.

---