Broad interpretation of "same class" under Rule 173L supports refund where returned and re-made goods are tariff-wise identical.

Rule 173L(3)(iii) was interpreted broadly: goods are "of the same class" where they are commercially and tariff-wise in the same category, even if their descriptions differ. Returned paper and re-made paper meant for Government supply for stamp printing were classifiable under the same tariff heading, so the sameness requirement was satisfied. Denial of refund on the ground of differing description was therefore unsustainable, and refund with consequential relief was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L was inadmissible on the ground that the returned goods and the re-made goods were not goods of the same class.

Analysis: The expression "of the same class" in Rule 173L(3)(iii) was construed in a wider sense. The returned and re-made goods were both papers meant for Government supply for printing stamps and were classifiable under the same tariff heading. The requirement of sameness of class was held to be satisfied even on a broader view, and the fact that the goods differed in description did not justify denial of refund.

Conclusion: The denial of refund was unsustainable and was set aside; the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Rule 173L(3)(iii), "of the same class" is to be interpreted broadly, and goods that are commercially and tariff-wise of the same category satisfy the requirement even if their descriptions differ.

---