Protest payment for excise duty: PLA endorsement was enough, and Rule 233B non-compliance did not bar refund limitation.

Central excise duty paid under protest was treated as valid where the assessee endorsed "protest" on the PLA. A separate letter or similar endorsement was sufficient to evidence protest, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not alter that character. The rule was held to be directory rather than mandatory, so its procedural requirements did not bar the refund claim on limitation grounds. The refund could not therefore be rejected as time-barred, and the assessee succeeded on the protest and limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred as time-barred for want of compliance with Rule 233B, and whether endorsement of "protest" on the PLA amounted to payment under protest.

Analysis: The duty payment was found to have been made under protest, as the appellants had endorsed the term "protest" on the PLA. The settled legal position accepted that a letter of protest or similar endorsement is sufficient to constitute protest for excise duty purposes. Rule 233B was held to be directory and not mandatory, so non-observance of its procedure did not destroy the character of payment under protest or bar the refund claim on limitation grounds.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 233B, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment of central excise duty under protest is valid where protest is clearly made, and compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 233B is directory, not mandatory, for the purpose of refund limitation.

---