Payment Under Protest in excise can rest on clear written communication despite missing formal endorsements and procedural steps.

Payment of excise duty may be treated as payment under protest where a written communication clearly states that duty is being deposited under protest and reserves the right to refund, even without formal endorsements on duty documents that were not available at the time. Rule 233B was treated as procedural, so the absence of a separate detailed representation within three months did not defeat the protest on these facts. The proposed reference to the High Court was declined because the issue was considered clear, definite, and not a debatable question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents' payment of duty could be treated as payment under protest despite the absence of formal endorsements and a separate detailed representation under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the reference application to the High Court raised a question of law fit for reference.

Analysis: The letter addressed by the respondents to the Superintendent, with a copy to the Assistant Collector, clearly stated that duty was being deposited under protest and that the right to refund was being reserved. The Tribunal held that Rule 233B is procedural in character and that the endorsement requirement on gate passes or duty documents did not arise where such documents were not available at the time of payment. It further held that the provision permitting a detailed representation within three months was not mandatory in the circumstances, especially when the protest itself was already communicated in writing. Applying the settled principle that a question of law need not be referred where the point is clear, definite, and not debatable, the Tribunal found no basis for reference.

Conclusion: The payment was validly treated as payment under protest, the limitation bar did not apply in the manner urged by the Revenue, and the reference application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to refer the proposed questions to the High Court and upheld the assessee's claim of payment under protest on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural requirements governing protest payment of duty are to be applied on the basis of substantial compliance, and a clear written protest may suffice where the statutory formalities are not mandatory in the facts of the case.

---