Refund under Central Excise requires strict protest compliance; invoice endorsements alone do not satisfy Rule 233B.

A refund claim under the Central Excise regime failed because duty was not validly paid under protest for purposes of Section 11B. The Tribunal held that Rule 233B required strict compliance, including submission of a protest letter to the proper officer for acknowledgement, and that an endorsement on invoices and challans was insufficient. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition in Mafatlal Industries, it concluded that the payment could not be treated as payment under protest. The refund claims were therefore time-barred and the Revenue's appeals succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act because the duty had not been paid under protest in accordance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the legal effect of an endorsement of protest made on invoices and challans. The relevant rule required an assessee seeking to pay duty under protest to follow the prescribed procedure and deliver a protest letter to the proper officer for acknowledgement. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's exposition in Mafatlal Industries required compliance with the rule and that a mere endorsement was not enough. Since no protest letter in the prescribed manner had been submitted, the payment could not be treated as payment under protest for the purpose of Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claims were time-barred and the Revenue's appeals were allowed.

---