https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80477 A mere short endorsement on an RT-12 return referring to excess duty payment did not amount to a valid protest or a proper refund claim filed before the competent authority, so limitation under section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act continued to run. Because the excess duty was paid on 20-7-1985 and the refund claim was lodged only on 28-1-1986, the claim was beyond the six-month limit and was therefore time-barred. The same approach was applied by analogy to limitation reasoning in demand matters under section 11A. The refund claim was rejected and the assessee's appeal failed. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:57:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80477 A mere short endorsement on an RT-12 return referring to excess duty payment did not amount to a valid protest or a proper refund claim filed before the competent authority, so limitation under section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act continued to run. Because the excess duty was paid on 20-7-1985 and the refund claim was lodged only on 28-1-1986, the claim was beyond the six-month limit and was therefore time-barred. The same approach was applied by analogy to limitation reasoning in demand matters under section 11A. The refund claim was rejected and the assessee's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80477