Payment under protest in central excise refund claims can override strict Rule 233B compliance and defeat limitation under Section 11B.

Payment made on the directions of preventive officers, together with prompt written objections to the preventive officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Range Superintendent, was treated as payment under protest. Because the duty liability was also contested in adjudication and the later demand notice was withdrawn, the protest was regarded as sufficiently recorded despite non-compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the procedural requirements were treated as directory in substance, so the six-month limitation under the proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The refund was therefore not time-barred and remained admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of strict compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the duty payment had to be treated as made under protest so as to attract the proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The duty had been paid on the directions of the preventive officers, and the assessee had promptly communicated its protest by letter to the preventive officer, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Range Superintendent. The dispute over duty liability was also carried into the adjudication proceedings, and the subsequent demand notice was withdrawn. On these facts, the protest was treated as sufficiently recorded. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B were treated as directory in substance, and the payment was held to be under protest. Once payment under protest was accepted, the six-month limitation under Section 11B did not apply.

Conclusion: The refund was not time-barred, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

---