Amritlal Lalubhai vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 April, 1985
He added that this Bench had not followed Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Messrs The Metal Saws Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, reported at 1985 E.C.R. 437 (CEGAT) though there was no contrary judgment of any other High Court on the point at issue in that case. On merits, he argued that the Gujarat High Court had gone wrong in their finding because the definition in item 18 of the Tariff was an inclusive one and was not confined to yarn made out of man-made fibres. Without prejudice to his main argument on classification, he stated that though the appellants had claimed to have paid the duties under protest, there was no record of such protest and both the lower authorities were silent on the question of protest. He maintained that their claim was partly time-barred under rule 11 read with rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as then in force, under which the time-limit for filing refund claims was one year.