Refund under Rule 173L denied where drug intermediate and finished product were classified under different tariff headings.

Refund under Rule 173L was available only when the returned goods were used in producing goods of the same class. The term "class" was read in its ordinary sense as goods sharing common characteristics or belonging to the same group, and goods under the same tariff item could satisfy that requirement. On the facts, the drug intermediate and the finished drug were classifiable under different tariff headings, so the earlier common classification did not apply. They were therefore not goods of the same class, and the refund claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether chloracetamidoxime and chlordiazepoxide are goods of the same class for the purpose of refund under Rule 173L.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 173L was available only where the returned goods were used for the production of goods of the same class. The term "class" was construed in its ordinary sense, with reference to goods belonging to the same group or sharing common characteristics. On that approach, goods falling under the same tariff item could be treated as belonging to the same class. Here, drug intermediate and the finished drug were classifiable under different tariff headings, and the earlier common classification no longer applied. They were therefore not goods of the same class for Rule 173L purposes.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible, and the assessee's contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order denying refund was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund under Rule 173L, goods used in the production of returned goods must be of the same class, and where the goods fall under different tariff headings they cannot be treated as the same class.

---