Marketability of process residue is not enough where binding authority treats aluminium dross and skimmings as non-excisable goods.

Aluminium dross and skimmings were examined against the accepted test of goods, including whether they ordinarily came to market, were bought and sold, and were known commercially. Although the material was admitted to be sold and to have commercial use, the Tribunal held that marketability alone did not justify excise levy under the residuary tariff item where the directly governing Bombay High Court authority on aluminium dross and skimmings treated them as not goods. On that basis, the process residue was not excisable as goods on the facts and law then applicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium dross and skimmings were goods and therefore excisable under the residuary tariff item.

Analysis: The question turned on whether the material answered the accepted test of goods, namely whether it ordinarily came to the market to be bought and sold and was known to the market. The reasoning examined the earlier High Court view, subsequent tariff amendments, and the later line of authority on marketable by-products and process waste. The decisive consideration was that dross and skimmings were admittedly sold in the market and had commercial use, but the President held that the binding Bombay High Court decision directly on aluminium dross and skimmings could not be displaced on the material then before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Aluminium dross and skimmings were not goods and were not excisable on that footing.

Ratio Decidendi: A process residue is not exigible as goods unless the law applicable to the case brings it within a taxable description; where the directly governing authority holds that the residue is not goods, marketability alone does not justify excise levy under the residuary item.

---