https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330961 Aluminium dross and skimming arising during aluminium manufacture were held not to be excisable goods because marketability was not established. The Tribunal found that mere inclusion in Heading 2620 did not by itself create excise liability, and the Revenue produced no evidence of an actual market or of proven end use for extraction of aluminium or manufacture of aluminium compounds. As a result, Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 did not assist the Revenue, and no central excise duty was payable on the product. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330961 Aluminium dross and skimming arising during aluminium manufacture were held not to be excisable goods because marketability was not established. The Tribunal found that mere inclusion in Heading 2620 did not by itself create excise liability, and the Revenue produced no evidence of an actual market or of proven end use for extraction of aluminium or manufacture of aluminium compounds. As a result, Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 did not assist the Revenue, and no central excise duty was payable on the product. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330961