Valid protest under central excise rules kept the refund claim alive and defeated the limitation bar.

Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as having been substantially complied with where a protest letter was delivered to the Range Superintendent, who was accepted as the proper officer, the department acknowledged payment under protest, and a detailed representation followed within three months. On those facts, the protest remained valid and kept the refund claim alive against the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Because the dispute involved a one-time debit in PLA and a one-time protest, Rule 233B(4) was not material. The assessee was held entitled to refund and consequential recredit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the protest lodged with the Range Superintendent satisfied Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to keep the refund claim alive and avoid the bar of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944.

Analysis: The protest letter was delivered to the Range Superintendent, who was treated as the proper officer for the purpose of Rule 233B(1). The record also showed that the department acknowledged payment under protest, and a detailed representation was filed within three months, meeting the requirements of Rule 233B(2) and Rule 233B(5). The facts involved a one-time debit in PLA coupled with a one-time protest, so Rule 233B(4) was not material. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B were substantially complied with, and those requirements were treated as directory rather than mandatory.

Conclusion: The protest was valid, the refund claim was not barred by limitation, and the assessee was entitled to refund and consequential recredit.

---