Rubber scrap from defective tubes is not excisable goods where it lacks distinct commercial identity and manufacture.

Rubber scrap obtained by cutting defective tubes was not treated as excisable goods because it was not shown to be a new commercially distinct commodity with its own character, use and name. Mere market value or suitability as raw material in rubber reclaim industries did not make it identifiable as goods. Following the view that waste or scrap arising in manufacture is not goods unless the scrap itself is manufactured, the scrap was held not liable to duty and not classifiable under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubber scrap obtained by cutting defective tubes was liable to duty and classifiable as goods under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The scrap was not shown to be a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate product having its own character, use and name. The fact that it may have some market value or may be usable as raw material in rubber reclaim industries did not make it identifiable as goods. The earlier view that waste or scrap arising in the course of manufacture is not goods in the absence of manufacture of waste or scrap was followed.

Conclusion: The rubber scrap was not liable to duty and was not classifiable under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; the appeal failed.

---