Specific tariff heading prevails over residuary entry; refund not barred by unjust enrichment for captively consumed goods.

A photocopier console assembly was treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 8537.10 because the product was specifically covered by that heading, and the specific entry prevailed over the rival residual classification under Heading 9009.90. Applying Note 2 to Section XVI and Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, the analysis rejected use of the broader competing provision before excluding the specific heading. On refund, a claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act was not barred by unjust enrichment where the goods were captively consumed in manufacture, as the principle was then not applied to such refunds. The assessee's classification and refund claim were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the console assembly of a photocopier was classifiable under Tariff Heading 8537.10 or Tariff Heading 9009.90. (ii) Whether the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the console assembly of a photocopier was classifiable under Tariff Heading 8537.10 or Tariff Heading 9009.90.

Analysis: The product was specifically covered by Tariff Heading 8537.10. Applying Clause (a) to Note 2 to Section XVI along with Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, the part was correctly treated as falling under the specific heading claimed by the assessee. The rival invocation of Clause (b) to Note 2 of Section XVI could not be applied without first excluding Clause (a).

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 8537.10 was upheld, against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable to refunds relating to commodities captively consumed in the manufacture of another commodity at the relevant time. Since the goods in question were captively consumed in the manufacture of photocopiers, the refund could not be denied on that ground.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on both classification and refund, and the order allowing the assessee's claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A product expressly covered by a specific tariff heading must be classified under that heading in preference to a general residuary entry, and refund cannot be denied on unjust enrichment where the relevant goods were captively consumed and the principle was not then applicable.

---