https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74911 Refund of excess excise duty was held maintainable where the claim was filed within six months under Section 11B and the approved classification list already granted the benefit of Notification No. 118/75. The Superintendent could not use endorsements in RT-12 returns to override the approved classification and deny exemption. On those facts, the protest requirement under Rule 233B was treated as inapplicable because protest was recorded in the challan and the refund claim was timely. The refund machinery under Section 11B could not be defeated where duty had been paid under an assessment inconsistent with the approved classification. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:38:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74911 Refund of excess excise duty was held maintainable where the claim was filed within six months under Section 11B and the approved classification list already granted the benefit of Notification No. 118/75. The Superintendent could not use endorsements in RT-12 returns to override the approved classification and deny exemption. On those facts, the protest requirement under Rule 233B was treated as inapplicable because protest was recorded in the challan and the refund claim was timely. The refund machinery under Section 11B could not be defeated where duty had been paid under an assessment inconsistent with the approved classification. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74911