https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166880 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. en-us Sat, 28 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:42:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166880 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 28 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166880