Rule 233B protest procedure requires prior acknowledgment before duty payment, and a protest letter is not a refund claim.

A protest letter under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must be submitted and acknowledged before payment of duty for the payment to be treated as made under protest. Where the letter is delivered only after duty has been paid, sub-rule (8) applies and the duty is deemed to have been paid without protest. The note below sub-rule (8) further clarifies that a protest letter is not itself a refund claim. A cited High Court ruling was distinguished on its different facts, involving a prior merits-based revision order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a protest letter submitted after payment of duty could validly treat the duty as paid under protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether such letter could itself be treated as a refund claim.

Analysis: The duty payment was made before the protest letter was delivered and acknowledged by the Proper Officer. On a plain reading of Rule 233B, the protest mechanism requires the letter of protest to be submitted and acknowledged before payment of duty. Where this procedure is not followed, sub-rule (8) operates and the duty is deemed to have been paid without protest. The note below sub-rule (8) also makes clear that a letter of protest does not constitute a refund claim. The cited High Court decision was distinguished because it arose in a materially different factual setting involving a prior merits-based revision order.

Conclusion: The protest was not valid under Rule 233B, the letter could not be treated as a refund claim, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was untenable because the statutory protest procedure was not complied with, with the result that the duty was treated as paid without protest.

---