https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81037 Refund under Central Excise was not to be rejected merely because the gate passes lacked the endorsement "under protest" when the classification list and RT 12 returns recorded duty payment under protest and a protest letter had been filed. Substantial compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as sufficient, and the absence of endorsement on one document was regarded as a technical omission. Where the protest was otherwise evidenced on record and the claim was justifiable, refund could not be defeated on a time-bar objection based on that formal defect. en-us Mon, 20 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:00:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81037 Refund under Central Excise was not to be rejected merely because the gate passes lacked the endorsement "under protest" when the classification list and RT 12 returns recorded duty payment under protest and a protest letter had been filed. Substantial compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as sufficient, and the absence of endorsement on one document was regarded as a technical omission. Where the protest was otherwise evidenced on record and the claim was justifiable, refund could not be defeated on a time-bar objection based on that formal defect. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81037