https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95609 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. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:20:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95609 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95609