Broad interpretation of "same class of goods" supported refund for rejected fire bricks reprocessed into mortar

Rule 173-L was interpreted broadly to determine whether rejected fire bricks returned for reprocessing into mortar remained goods of the same class for refund purposes. In the absence of any statutory definition of "class" in the excise law, the ordinary meaning was applied, and the fact that both fire bricks and mortar were assessed under Tariff Item 68 supported treatment as the same class of goods. On that basis, the refund claim satisfied the rule and was correctly allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejected fire bricks, after being returned and reprocessed into mortar, could be treated as goods of the same class for the purposes of refund under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The expression "class" in Rule 173-L(3)(iii) was held to require a broad construction, there being no definition in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Applying the ordinary meaning of "class" and considering that both fire bricks and mortar were assessed under the same Tariff Item 68, the returned defective bricks and the mortar manufactured from them were treated as belonging to the same class of goods. The refund claim was therefore found to satisfy the rule, and the earlier administrative decision relied upon by the respondent was treated as supporting this view.

Conclusion: The goods were of the same class, and the refund under Rule 173-L was correctly allowed.

---