https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80643 Duty paid during 1978 could not be subjected to Rule 233B, introduced later, and the assessee's contemporaneous objections to classification, request for revised classification, and provisional assessment were sufficient to show payment under protest in substance. The absence of the endorsement "Under Protest" on gate passes therefore did not justify rejection of the refund claim. Payment under protest mattered only for limitation, and the claim was not time-barred on the facts recorded. en-us Thu, 10 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:24:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80643 Duty paid during 1978 could not be subjected to Rule 233B, introduced later, and the assessee's contemporaneous objections to classification, request for revised classification, and provisional assessment were sufficient to show payment under protest in substance. The absence of the endorsement "Under Protest" on gate passes therefore did not justify rejection of the refund claim. Payment under protest mattered only for limitation, and the claim was not time-barred on the facts recorded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80643