https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167432 Metallised yarn was classified under item 15A(2) and not item 18 for the material period, because the Tribunal followed the existing High Court ruling that such yarn was not manufactured out of man-made fibres, and no contrary Supreme Court or High Court authority was shown. The refund claim was held subject to the statutory one-year limitation under rule 11 read with rule 173-J, so the barred portion could not be granted unless the assessee proved that duty had been paid under protest throughout. The classification issue was decided in favour of the assessee, while refund relief was restricted by limitation in favour of the revenue. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:03:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167432 Metallised yarn was classified under item 15A(2) and not item 18 for the material period, because the Tribunal followed the existing High Court ruling that such yarn was not manufactured out of man-made fibres, and no contrary Supreme Court or High Court authority was shown. The refund claim was held subject to the statutory one-year limitation under rule 11 read with rule 173-J, so the barred portion could not be granted unless the assessee proved that duty had been paid under protest throughout. The classification issue was decided in favour of the assessee, while refund relief was restricted by limitation in favour of the revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167432