https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84095 Duty paid under protest from 24-3-1982 could not be subjected to the normal refund limitation period, because the protest letter expressly disputed classification under T.I. 17(4), claimed exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E., and recorded payment under protest. The absence of a separate appeal against classification did not defeat the refund claim, as the earlier appellate proceedings related to a different period and did not override the protest. The protest also could not be treated as withdrawn without a speaking order, which had not been issued. The refund claim for the period after 24-3-1982 therefore had to be examined on merits. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:59:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84095 Duty paid under protest from 24-3-1982 could not be subjected to the normal refund limitation period, because the protest letter expressly disputed classification under T.I. 17(4), claimed exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E., and recorded payment under protest. The absence of a separate appeal against classification did not defeat the refund claim, as the earlier appellate proceedings related to a different period and did not override the protest. The protest also could not be treated as withdrawn without a speaking order, which had not been issued. The refund claim for the period after 24-3-1982 therefore had to be examined on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84095