Duty paid under protest and substantial compliance with endorsement rules preserved the refund claim despite missing form endorsements.

Duty paid under protest was treated as sufficient where the assessee had issued a written protest letter stating that refund would be claimed later and the price lists referred to that letter. The finalisation of the price lists occurred only later, so the payments were regarded as provisional until that date; the refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation. The endorsement requirement under Rule 233B on gate passes, RT-12 returns and related papers was procedural, and substantial compliance was accepted. The absence of endorsements on all prescribed documents did not defeat the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, and whether non-endorsement of "duty paid under protest" on the prescribed documents under Rule 233B defeated the claim.

Analysis: The appellants had issued a letter clearly stating that duty was being paid under protest and that refund claims would be filed later, and the price lists also referred to that letter. The Assistant Collector finalized the price lists only on 17-2-1989, so the payments remained provisional until that date. The requirement in Rule 233B to make endorsements on gate passes, RT-12 returns and related papers was treated as procedural. On the facts, the written protest and the reference in the price lists amounted to substantial compliance, and the absence of endorsements on all prescribed forms did not by itself defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, and the failure to endorse all prescribed documents did not invalidate the claim. The appeal succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to refund.

---