Marketability of manufacturing residue must be proved before excise classification; incidental waste is not goods merely because it may fetch a price.

Carbide sludge generated during acetylene gas manufacture was treated as waste or effluent, not excisable goods under Tariff Item 68. The decisive point was marketability: isolated sales and the mere ability to fetch a price did not establish that the residue had the character of goods for central excise purposes. In the absence of credible evidence proving marketability and goods status, the Revenue's classification claim could not be sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether carbide sludge arising in the course of manufacture of acetylene gas was goods classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The product was found to be a waste or effluent generated in the manufacturing process, with only stray instances of sale and no real marketability established. Mere capability of fetching some price did not make the refuse a by-product or goods for excise purposes. In the absence of credible evidence showing that carbide sludge satisfied the legal tests of goods, the classification claimed by Revenue could not be accepted.

Conclusion: Carbide sludge was not goods classifiable under Tariff Item 68, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Waste arising as an incidental residue of manufacture is not excisable goods merely because it may occasionally fetch a price; marketability and the character of goods must be proved by credible evidence.

---