Payment under protest and Rule 233B compliance were treated as sufficient, defeating the limitation objection and requiring fresh refund consideration.

A letter addressed to the Assistant Collector intimating payment under protest was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B for purposes of Section 11B, and the refund claim for the post-protest period was therefore to be regarded as filed under protest. The Tribunal held that the remaining formal requirements of Rule 233B were procedural rather than mandatory, so rejection of the claim solely for non-compliance with those procedures could not be sustained. As the original rejection rested on limitation, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the letter of protest dated 23-10-1982 constituted sufficient compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for treating the refund claim as filed under protest and for overcoming the time-bar objection.

Analysis: The refund related to a period partly prior to the protest letter and partly thereafter. The Tribunal held that, for the post-protest period, the claim had to be treated as filed under protest. It accepted the view that a letter addressed to the Assistant Collector intimating payment under protest is sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The remaining formal requirements in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were treated as procedural and not mandatory, and the rejection solely for non-compliance with those procedures could not stand. Since the original claim had been rejected on limitation, fresh consideration by the original authority was necessary.

Conclusion: The protest letter was held to be sufficient compliance, the time-bar objection could not be sustained on that ground, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

---