https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104402 A statement recorded by the Superintendent during a classification dispute was treated as a valid protest under Rule 233B because it clearly showed that duty, if paid for clearance, would be paid under protest. The protest was held to continue until the classification list was finally approved at nil rate. The refund claim was nevertheless time-barred because it was filed more than six months after the protest ceased on approval of the classification list. The appeal therefore failed, even though the payment was accepted as made under protest. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:51:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104402 A statement recorded by the Superintendent during a classification dispute was treated as a valid protest under Rule 233B because it clearly showed that duty, if paid for clearance, would be paid under protest. The protest was held to continue until the classification list was finally approved at nil rate. The refund claim was nevertheless time-barred because it was filed more than six months after the protest ceased on approval of the classification list. The appeal therefore failed, even though the payment was accepted as made under protest. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104402