Rule 233B protest procedure is directory; substantial compliance preserves protest and excludes ordinary refund limitation.

Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was enough to validly lodge a protest against duty payment. Delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent was accepted as effective delivery to the proper authority, and the absence of a separate detailed representation did not defeat the protest where reasons were stated in the letter itself. Because the duty was paid under valid protest, the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to the protested refund claims. The refund rejections were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules in lodging protest against duty payment was mandatory or only directory, and whether delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent with no separate detailed representation defeated the protest. (ii) Whether, in view of valid protest, the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to the refund claims.

Issue (i): Whether compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules in lodging protest against duty payment was mandatory or only directory, and whether delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent with no separate detailed representation defeated the protest.

Analysis: Rule 233B was held to be procedural in character. A procedural rule of this nature was treated as directory rather than mandatory, so substantial compliance was sufficient. Delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent, who functioned under the Assistant Collector, was treated as effective delivery to the proper authority in the ordinary course. The absence of a separate detailed representation was also not fatal where the protest letter itself contained reasons supporting the protest.

Conclusion: The protest was validly lodged by substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and rejection on the ground of defective procedure was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of valid protest, the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to the refund claims.

Analysis: Once duty was held to have been paid under protest in substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, the statutory bar of limitation attached to ordinary refund claims did not apply to the claims covered by such protest.

Conclusion: The limitation under Section 11B did not apply to the two protested refund claims.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting the refund claims were set aside, and the matters were sent back for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to produce the necessary material on the merits of the refund claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The procedure for payment of duty under protest under Rule 233B is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance is enough to preserve the protest and exclude the ordinary limitation under Section 11B.

---