https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72309 Duty paid under protest was held sufficient to preserve the refund claim from the ordinary limitation period where a formal protest letter, endorsed gate passes, and the surrounding valuation dispute showed continuing protest despite approval of the price list. Non-endorsement of the R.T. 12 returns under Rule 233B was treated as a technical lapse, not a bar to refund, because the essential protest was otherwise evidenced and substantial compliance was shown. The order rejecting refund was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits of the refund claim. en-us Fri, 01 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 13:28:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72309 Duty paid under protest was held sufficient to preserve the refund claim from the ordinary limitation period where a formal protest letter, endorsed gate passes, and the surrounding valuation dispute showed continuing protest despite approval of the price list. Non-endorsement of the R.T. 12 returns under Rule 233B was treated as a technical lapse, not a bar to refund, because the essential protest was otherwise evidenced and substantial compliance was shown. The order rejecting refund was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72309