Same class test under excise refund law allows refund where yarn retains the same essential character despite different tariff headings.

Rule 173L refund turns on whether the returned goods and the reprocessed goods are of the same class, not merely on the tariff headings under which they were cleared. Where both goods remain within the same broad category and retain the same essential character, the statutory condition is satisfied. On that basis, non-textured synthetic filament yarn returned and textured yarn later cleared were treated as the same class of goods, and the refund claim was allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-textured synthetic filament yarn cleared originally under one heading and reprocessed textured yarn cleared later under another heading are goods of the same class for the purposes of refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The returned goods and the reprocessed goods were both synthetic filament yarn. The mere fact that the original clearance and the subsequent clearance fell under different tariff headings did not determine the issue, because the relevant test was whether the goods belonged to the same class. As both varieties of yarn remained within the same broad category of synthetic filament yarn, the condition for applying Rule 173L was satisfied.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be of the same class, Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules applied, and the refund claim was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods may be regarded as belonging to the same class for refund purposes even if they are cleared under different tariff headings, where their essential character and category remain the same.

---