https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72190 A refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector and filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent may satisfy the limitation requirement under Section 11B if the assessee proves that, in the relevant collectorate practice, such presentation was accepted as filing before the proper authority. The majority treated departmental working practice as relevant to whether the statutory filing form was effectively complied with, and rejected payment under protest as an independent answer to limitation. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of whether the prevailing Madras Collectorate practice existed at the relevant time; if proved, the claim would be treated as within time and reconsidered on merits. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2011 11:20:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72190 A refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector and filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent may satisfy the limitation requirement under Section 11B if the assessee proves that, in the relevant collectorate practice, such presentation was accepted as filing before the proper authority. The majority treated departmental working practice as relevant to whether the statutory filing form was effectively complied with, and rejected payment under protest as an independent answer to limitation. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of whether the prevailing Madras Collectorate practice existed at the relevant time; if proved, the claim would be treated as within time and reconsidered on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72190