Protest-based refund claims: endorsement of protest can satisfy Rule 233B, and procedural lapse will not bar limitation.

A refund claim paid under protest was not defeated by incomplete compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because an endorsement or letter of protest was treated as sufficient intimation to the department. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had marked some RT-12 returns as "under protest" and that the department was aware of and rejected the protest only on procedural grounds. Applying the settled principle that strict observance of Rule 233B formalities is not indispensable where protest is otherwise lodged, the procedural lapse did not bar refund. The claim was also not treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be denied for alleged non-compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the claim was barred by time.

Analysis: Rule 233B requires an assessee seeking to pay duty under protest to deliver a letter of protest with grounds and to endorse the relevant documents and RT-12 returns. The record showed that the assessee had endorsed "under protest" on some RT-12 returns and that the department had noticed and rejected the protest on the ground that the prescribed procedure had not been fully followed. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a letter or endorsement of protest constitutes due intimation to the department and that strict compliance with the procedural formalities of Rule 233B is not indispensable where the protest is otherwise lodged. On that basis, the procedural lapse could not defeat the refund claim, and the claim was not treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected for non-compliance with Rule 233B, and it was held not to be barred by limitation.

---