https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73256 Refund claims before excise authorities were held subject to the statutory limitation period under the excise law, and the general law of limitation did not apply. The plea that duty was paid under protest failed because, for the period before 1-6-1981, delivery of the protest letter to the proper officer was not proved, and for the later period the mandatory protest procedure under Rule 233B was not followed. The admissible portion of the claims was not to be denied merely for want of fresh computation; revised calculations were directed, while loading charges were held non-deductible and the refund was confined to amounts found within time. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 16:16:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73256 Refund claims before excise authorities were held subject to the statutory limitation period under the excise law, and the general law of limitation did not apply. The plea that duty was paid under protest failed because, for the period before 1-6-1981, delivery of the protest letter to the proper officer was not proved, and for the later period the mandatory protest procedure under Rule 233B was not followed. The admissible portion of the claims was not to be denied merely for want of fresh computation; revised calculations were directed, while loading charges were held non-deductible and the refund was confined to amounts found within time. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73256