https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74331 Duty paid under protest was held to keep the refund claims outside the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B(1), so the claims were maintainable. The protest remained effective because it had not been finally disposed of by a speaking order under Rule 233B, and the absence of such disposal did not make the protest ineffective. The rejection of refund claims on that basis was unsustainable, and the lower appellate authority's allowance of the refunds was sustained with directions for expeditious settlement. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74331 Duty paid under protest was held to keep the refund claims outside the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B(1), so the claims were maintainable. The protest remained effective because it had not been finally disposed of by a speaking order under Rule 233B, and the absence of such disposal did not make the protest ineffective. The rejection of refund claims on that basis was unsustainable, and the lower appellate authority's allowance of the refunds was sustained with directions for expeditious settlement. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74331