ORDER
A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)
1. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants.
2. It is, however, seen from record that there is a letter dated 15-3-1999 from the Advocate for the appellants forwarding some written arguments and submiting that the appellants are entitled to succeed in the light of case law cited in the written submissions.
3. Appellants’ claim for refund of the differential between the higher rate of duty paid under Chapter Heading 2404.50 and the lower rate applicable to items under Chapter Heading 2404.50 was rejected by authorities below.
4. The issue involved is as to whether snuff prepared by the appellants from duty paid raw snuff after proper sealing and adding flavour etc. would be covered by Chapter sub-heading 2404.50 (“snuff of tobacco”) or 2404.60 (“preparations containing snuff of tobacco in any proportion”). The appellants’ contention is that their snuff is covered by Chapter Heading 2404.60. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) while rejecting the appellants’ contention, relied on the earlier decision of the Collector in the appellant’s own case. In the written submissions filed by the appellants, they have invited our reference to the Tribunal’s Final Order No. 84 to 88/97-C, dated 18-1-1997 1997 (92) E.L.T. 631 (Tribunal), in which the order relied on by the Collector (Appeals) had been considered and set aside.
5. We have perused the earlier Tribunal order referred to by the ld. Advocate for the appellant in the written submissions. We find that the matter has been settled in favour of the appellants in their own case. The Tribunal had observed that appellants had purchased raw snuff on which duty had already been paid under Heading 2404.50 and therefore no duty could be demanded again. Further, they were also processing, adding flavours and then re-packing into smaller packs. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 24 provides that labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer would amount to manufacture. Therefore a new marketable commodity classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.60 has emerged. The appellants’ contention therefore that their product was classifiable under subheading 2404.60 has merit.
6. Ld. JDR Shri V.M. Udhoji, reiterated the findings of the authorities below.
7. Following the Tribunal’s Final Order in appellants’ own case (supra), we hold that the correct classification of the said product would be under Chapter Heading 2404.60.
8. Appeal accordingly succeeds with consequential benefits to appellants. However, since the question relates to a refund claim, the law relating to unjust enrichment will be applicable and the authority concerned shall allow the refund subject to the provisions of the law relating to unjust enrichment.