Marketability remains essential for excisability; incidental aluminium residues were treated as non-dutiable waste, with limitation also failing.

Aluminium dross, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material arising incidentally in aluminium manufacture were treated as waste, refuse or residue rather than marketable excisable goods. The governing principle applied was that marketability is an essential element of excisability, and mere saleability or inclusion within a tariff chapter for ash and residues does not by itself attract central excise duty. On the facts, the materials were not the intended final products of manufacture, so the duty demands and penalties were unsustainable. The extended limitation period also failed because suppression was not established where the department had relevant knowledge of the clearances and returns.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether aluminium dross, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material are excisable goods liable to duty under the tariff and outside the exemption for Chapter 26 goods; (ii) Whether the demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation for want of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether aluminium dross, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material are excisable goods liable to duty under the tariff and outside the exemption for Chapter 26 goods.

Analysis: The goods in question arise unavoidably during the manufacture of aluminium products and are in the nature of waste, refuse or residue. The governing principle applied was that marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, and an article which is merely waste or rubbish, though saleable, is not necessarily goods for central excise purposes. The tariff entry for Chapter 26 and the chapter note dealing with ash and residues did not, on the facts, convert these materials into finished excisable goods. The exemption for goods falling in Chapter 26 and the Modvat scheme were also treated as reinforcing the conclusion that such incidental residues were not the intended final products for levy.

Conclusion: The items were held not to be excisable goods, and the duty demands and penalties were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation for want of suppression.

Analysis: Since the disputed materials were held not to be goods and their non-declaration as final products did not amount to concealment, the basis for invoking the extended period failed. The available record also showed that the department had knowledge of the relevant clearances and returns, so suppression was not established.

Conclusion: The demand for the period covered by the extended limitation notice was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the duty demands, penalties and the limitation-based demand were set aside, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere inclusion of a substance in the tariff or its saleability does not make it excisable unless it is marketable goods manufactured as a final product; incidental waste or residue arising in the course of manufacture is not exigible merely because it falls within a chapter heading for ash or residues.

---