Substantial compliance with protest requirements can preserve a central excise refund claim despite a missing gate pass endorsement.

Refund under Central Excise was not to be rejected merely because the gate passes lacked the endorsement "under protest" when the classification list and RT 12 returns recorded duty payment under protest and a protest letter had been filed. Substantial compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as sufficient, and the absence of endorsement on one document was regarded as a technical omission. Where the protest was otherwise evidenced on record and the claim was justifiable, refund could not be defeated on a time-bar objection based on that formal defect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected as time-barred merely because the gate passes did not bear the endorsement "under protest", despite the classification list and RT 12 returns showing payment under protest and the assessee having substantially complied with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The classification list had been filed much earlier and was approved only after a considerable delay. During the interregnum, the assessment was treated as provisional under Rule 173B(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant had filed a protest letter and had marked the classification list and RT 12 returns as duty paid under protest. The absence of the endorsement on the gate pass was treated as a mere technical omission. Refund matters were required to be decided on the justness of the claim and not defeated by procedural formalities where the substance of protest was on record.

Conclusion: Non-endorsement of "under protest" on the gate pass did not disentitle the appellant from refund. Rule 233B was substantially complied with and the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of time bar.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund rejection was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where protest against duty payment is evidenced by the relevant classification list and returns, a technical omission in one document does not defeat refund if Rule 233B is substantially complied with and the claim is otherwise justifiable.

---