https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104583 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. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:27:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104583 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104583