Duty paid under express protest satisfies Rule 233B where the record otherwise clearly shows departmental notice.

Excise duty paid under an express protest communicated to the department at the time of payment was treated as compliant with Rule 233B, so the refund claim was not time-barred. The absence of endorsements on gate passes and monthly returns was held immaterial on the facts, because the goods had been removed without those documents and the protest letter, read with the challenge to the demand order before the Tribunal, sufficiently established protest. The operative principle is that strict non-endorsement formalities do not defeat compliance where the factual record otherwise shows a clear protest at the time of payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty payment was made under protest in compliance with Rule 233B, so that the refund claim could not be treated as time-barred.

Analysis: The payment was accompanied by a letter expressly stating that the excise duty was remitted under protest. The absence of an endorsement on gate passes and monthly returns was held to be immaterial on the facts, because the goods had been removed without such documents. The payment letter, together with the challenge to the demand order before the Tribunal, satisfied the requirement of protest under the rule.

Conclusion: The payment was validly made under protest and the refund claim was within time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under an express protest communicated to the department at the time of payment, strict non-endorsement formalities under Rule 233B do not defeat compliance if the factual circumstances otherwise establish protest.

---