https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72731 A clear and continued protest against payment of central excise duty can keep a refund claim outside the ordinary limitation bar under Rule 11, and the later procedural requirement in Rule 233B cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat that protest. The text also states that classification of wet chlorine under Tariff Item 68 could be examined in review or appellate proceedings as a connected ground on liability, and that such examination was not barred by Section 36(2) where the matter concerned denial of refund on correct classification rather than a finally determined short-levy demand. The refund finding on limitation was maintained, while classification was remitted for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 20 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2011 16:50:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72731 A clear and continued protest against payment of central excise duty can keep a refund claim outside the ordinary limitation bar under Rule 11, and the later procedural requirement in Rule 233B cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat that protest. The text also states that classification of wet chlorine under Tariff Item 68 could be examined in review or appellate proceedings as a connected ground on liability, and that such examination was not barred by Section 36(2) where the matter concerned denial of refund on correct classification rather than a finally determined short-levy demand. The refund finding on limitation was maintained, while classification was remitted for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72731