Valid protest under Rule 233B upheld where letter to Superintendent amounted to substantial compliance and preserved refund entitlement.

A protest letter delivered to the Superintendent was treated as valid compliance with Rule 233B because the rule did not prescribe a mandatory form or require delivery to a specific officer. The requirement to endorse or submit the protest to the Assistant Collector was considered directory, not mandatory, and the Superintendent was a proper officer to receive it. On that basis, substantial compliance was sufficient, and the refund claim could not be rejected for the procedural defect alleged. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the refund order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a letter of protest delivered to the Superintendent, and not to the Assistant Collector, amounted to valid compliance with Rule 233B so as to treat the duty as paid under protest and entitle the assessee to refund.

Analysis: The governing rule did not prescribe any particular form of protest, and the requirement of endorsement or delivery to a particular officer was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The Superintendent was a proper officer for receiving the protest, and the protest letter constituted sufficient compliance with the rule. On that footing, the procedural omission complained of did not defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The protest was valid and there was substantial compliance with Rule 233B. The refund could not be denied on the ground that the letter was delivered to the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the refund order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule governing protest against duty payment is directory and does not prescribe a mandatory form or recipient, a protest letter delivered to a proper officer constitutes sufficient compliance and preserves the refund claim.

---