Protest under Central Excise procedure was treated as valid despite no formal endorsement, so the refund claim was not time-barred.

Filing a classification list declaring the goods non-excisable, followed by departmental approval, was treated as sufficient notice of protest where the department knew duty was being paid under protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was regarded as procedural and directory, not mandatory, so failure to follow the formal endorsement procedure did not make the payment unprotested or render the refund claim time-barred. The Revenue's limitation objection was rejected, and the refund claim was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 rendered the duty payment unprotested and the refund claim time-barred.

Analysis: The filing of the classification list stating that the goods were non-excisable, followed by its approval by the revenue, was treated as sufficient notice of protest. Rule 233B was held to be procedural and directory, not mandatory, where the department was aware that duty was being paid under protest. In these circumstances, the absence of the formal endorsement procedure did not convert the payment into one made without protest or make the refund claim barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred, and the Revenue's objection based on Rule 233B was rejected.

---