Tariff classification governs "same class of goods" under Rule 97; different cigarette brands remain within the same class for refund.

For Rule 97 refund, "same class of goods" is determined by tariff classification for levy, not by brand differences or consumer preference. Cigarettes remade from one brand into another remain within the same tariff-recognised class, even if brand identity and duty incidence change, so the refund cannot be denied merely because the remade goods are of a different brand. Only if the remade product falls into a different tariff category would it cease to be goods of the same class.

---

---

Issues: Whether different brands of cigarettes constitute the same class of goods for the purpose of refund under Rule 97 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Rule 97 permits refund where goods removed for home consumption are returned for remaking, refining, reconditioning or similar processes, but denies refund if the goods are disposed of otherwise than for production of goods of the same class. The expression "same class" must be construed in the context of the scheme of the rule. For cigarettes, brand differences affect market preference and value, but the decisive test is the tariff class recognised for levy. Where cigarettes are remade from one brand into another brand of cigarettes, the goods remain within the same tariff class notwithstanding variation in brand or duty incidence. Only where the remade product moves into a different tariff-recognised category would it cease to be goods of the same class.

Conclusion: Different brands of cigarettes are goods of the same class for Rule 97, and the refund claim could not be denied on the ground that the remade cigarettes were of another brand.

Ratio Decidendi: For Rule 97, "same class of goods" means the class recognised in tariff classification for levy of duty, not merely the market brand or consumer preference.

---