Protest letter to excise superintendent satisfied Rule 233B substantially, preserving refund claim from limitation.

A letter of protest delivered to the Range Superintendent was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B because the Superintendent functioned as part of the Assistant Collector's office. The absence of a separate detailed representation was not fatal where the protest letter itself stated the grounds of objection. On that basis, duty paid under protest was recognised in substance, so the refund claim was not barred by limitation under Section 11B and remained admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether a letter of protest delivered to the Range Superintendent constituted substantial compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to treat the duty as paid under protest and keep the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable to the refund claim.

Analysis: The protest letter filed before the Superintendent was treated as having been effectively delivered to the Assistant Collector, since the Superintendent functioned as part of that office. The absence of a separate detailed representation was not fatal where the protest letter itself set out the grounds of protest. On that basis, the requirements of Rule 233B were held to have been substantially complied with, and the refund could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The protest was valid in substance, the refund claim was not hit by limitation, and the refund was held admissible to the assessee.

---