Protest under Central Excise refund rules is not defeated by a minor endorsement lapse where substance is complied with.

A refund claim under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules could not be rejected merely because some third copies of gate passes or invoices lacked a protest endorsement, where the protest letter had been lodged with the Department before the relevant clearances and the main procedural requirements were substantially complied with. The omission was treated as a technical lapse rather than non-compliance with the protest procedure. The refund claim therefore had to be examined on its merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected for non-compliance with the endorsement requirement under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules when the protest had been duly lodged and the other procedural requirements were substantially complied with.

Analysis: The protest letter had been lodged with the Department before the relevant clearances, and endorsements of protest were made on the gate passes in the main. The only lapse was that in some stray cases the third copy of the gate pass or the invoice did not bear the protest endorsement. Rule 233B prescribes the procedure for duty paid under protest, but where the substantive requirements are satisfied and no breach of any other condition is shown, a minor omission of this nature is only a technical lapse.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on this ground was unjustified, and the refund claim was required to be considered in accordance with law.

---