Industrial waste is not excisable goods merely because it is sold and marketable after production.

Dust Collector Fine, generated incidentally during grinding and polishing, was treated as heterogeneous waste residue rather than a consciously manufactured, standardised product. Because the material arose as industrial waste in the course of production, it did not satisfy the test of excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Mere sale or marketability of the residue was held insufficient to create excisability where the item was not deliberately manufactured under controlled conditions. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the dust collector fine was held not classifiable for duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fine powder known as "Dust Collector Fine", emerging during grinding and polishing operations, was excisable goods liable to classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The product was found to be a heterogeneous waste residue collected incidentally during manufacture, not a consciously manufactured and standardised product. The cited circular did not apply because it dealt with a different manufacturing process and a product of controlled, graded production. Mere sale of the residue did not make it goods, since marketability alone does not establish excisability where the material is only waste arising in the course of production. The reasoning was supported by decisions holding that industrial waste, scrap, cinder, sludge, sweepings, and similar by-products arising without deliberate manufacture are not excisable merely because they may fetch a price.

Conclusion: The dust collector fine was not excisable goods and was not classifiable for duty under the tariff; the Revenue's challenge failed and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A residue or waste product arising incidentally in the manufacturing process, and not consciously manufactured under controlled conditions, does not become excisable goods merely because it is marketable or sold.

---