Saleability of refining residues does not create excisability; incidental waste remains non-dutiable absent manufacture.

Incidental residues arising during crude sunflower oil refining, including sunflower mud, soap stock, gums, wax, fatty acids and spent earth, were treated as waste and not excisable goods. Saleability and proposed tariff classification under Heading 1522 00 20/90 did not by themselves establish manufacture or liability to central excise duty. The Tribunal followed the assessee's own earlier case, in which the same residues were held non-dutiable, a view later affirmed by the Supreme Court and reiterated in a subsequent Tribunal order. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, with the residues held not liable to central excise duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the residues emerging in the course of refining crude sunflower oil, namely sunflower mud, soap stock, gums, wax, fatty acids and spent earth, are excisable products liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The residues arose incidentally during the refining process and the dispute turned on whether their saleability and proposed tariff classification as Heading 1522 00 20/90 could make them dutiable goods. The same dispute had already been decided in the assessee's own case, where the Tribunal had held that such residue is waste and not a manufactured product, and that mere saleability does not convert waste into excisable goods. That view had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court and followed again in a later Tribunal order involving the same assessee.

Conclusion: The residues are not liable to central excise duty and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere saleability of an incidental residue does not by itself constitute manufacture or create excisability; such waste remains non-dutiable unless it is shown to be a manufactured product.

---