Rule 233B protest requirements: post-payment protest after Modvat credit reversal is invalid and refund claim fails.

Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires a protest against duty payment or reversal of credit to be made before the payment and in the prescribed manner. A protest recorded only after reversal of Modvat credit does not satisfy the rule, and allegations of coercion do not override the mandatory procedural requirements. Where the steps under sub-rules (1) to (4) are not followed, the payment is treated as made without valid protest under sub-rule (8), with the result that a refund claim based on such reversal is not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim based on reversal of Modvat credit was maintainable when the alleged protest letter was written after the reversal and the requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not followed.

Analysis: The protest relied upon by the appellant was recorded only after the credit had already been reversed, whereas Rule 233B requires a protest to precede payment or reversal and to be made in the manner prescribed by the rule. The circumstances relied upon by the appellant, including coercive pressure, did not override the mandatory procedural requirements of the rule. Since the steps contemplated by sub-rules (1) to (4) were not complied with, the payment had to be treated as one made without protest under sub-rule (8).

Conclusion: The protest was not valid in law and the refund claim was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the payment was held to be without a valid protest under the prescribed excise procedure, leaving the refund claim liable to rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governs protest against duty payment, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is mandatory and a post-payment protest does not suffice.

---