K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. Aluminium 'dross' is a residue which forms in the furnace during melting of aluminium ingots and also to some extent during subsequent treatment and holding operations of molten baths in the furnace. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether such dross can be considered as excisable 'goods'. The appellants admitted before us that aluminium dross was saleable commodity and it had commercial and industrial uses. Yet, placing reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment at 1980 E.L.T. 146 (Bom) - Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and another v. A.K. Bandyopadhayay and Ors. which was later confirmed by the Division Bench of the same High Court on 26-2-1986 in Appeal No. 524 of 1980, they claimed that dross was not goods and hence not liable to duty. There is no dispute between the parties that if dross is held to be goods, it would fall for classification under the residuary item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellants' reliance on the Bombay High Court judgments aforesaid is no longer valid for two reasons:

(1) These judgments relate to clearances of dross prior to 1975 while in the