https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92689 Aluminium dross, skimmed refuse, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material were not treated as excisable goods because they did not emerge from a manufacturing process creating a new product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Mere placement under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was insufficient without the basic requirement of manufacture, and marketability was not shown. On that basis, the materials were held not dutiable to Central Excise duty, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:17:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92689 Aluminium dross, skimmed refuse, pot dug out material and furnace dug out material were not treated as excisable goods because they did not emerge from a manufacturing process creating a new product under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Mere placement under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was insufficient without the basic requirement of manufacture, and marketability was not shown. On that basis, the materials were held not dutiable to Central Excise duty, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92689