https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40664 Cotton yarn under Item 18-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was assessed on the basis of its actual count, because the tariff classification depended on the yarn itself and not on an average count. For recovery of duty allegedly erroneously refunded, Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a written demand within three months from the date the refund was made. The relevant date was the Department's issuance of refund vouchers, not their encashment by the assessee, so the demand relating to the October 1966 refunds was time-barred to that extent and the remainder of the demand survived. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 11:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40664 Cotton yarn under Item 18-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was assessed on the basis of its actual count, because the tariff classification depended on the yarn itself and not on an average count. For recovery of duty allegedly erroneously refunded, Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a written demand within three months from the date the refund was made. The relevant date was the Department's issuance of refund vouchers, not their encashment by the assessee, so the demand relating to the October 1966 refunds was time-barred to that extent and the remainder of the demand survived. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40664