(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order -in -Appeal No. 69/94 -TRY, dated 25 -11 -94 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents -assessee with consequential relief by holding that Sulphuric Acid and anhydrous hydrofluoric acid fall under the same category of goods and since Sulphuric Acid was upgraded and utilized in the manufacture of anhydrous Hydrochloric Acid and this Anhydrous Hydrofluoric acid is cleared subsequently on payment of duty, the exemption under Notification No. 217/86 would be available to the sulphuric acid.
(2.) Shri C. Mani, learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and argued that the respondents -assessee would not be eligible for refund in terms of Rule 173L(3)(iii) of the CE Rules, 1944. He has also argued that the term "class" as per Websters Dictionary is a "group of persons, things, qualities or activities having common characteristics and attributes......" and though Sulphuric Acid and Hydrofluoric acid are inorganic acids, their characteristics are different.
(3.) SHRI M. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the assessee -respondents took me to the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) from para 4 to 4.2 of the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has extensively dealt with the case and after analysing the whole issue, he has allowed the refund. In this connection he also invited my attention to the judgment of the East Zonal Bench of CEGAT, Kolkata in the case of Titagarh Paper Mills v. CCE. Calcutta -III reported in 2002 (53) RLT 728 by which the Bench has held "that the term 'same class' under Rule 173L(3)(iii) is of wider connotation and it is not necessary that same type of paper should be manufactured by the appellants from returned paper". Similarly in the present case since both the acids are of the same class, therefore, the refund has been rightly granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).