https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81255 Refund was not barred by limitation where the assessees had disputed the levy from the outset, endorsed payment under protest, and sent a written protest to the authorities. A prior departmental order had expressly recorded that the demands were honoured under protest and was never appealed, so that finding attained finality and could not later be ignored by the refund authority. Rule 233B was treated as substantially complied with, and the department failed to disprove protest compliance. The claim therefore could not be rejected as time-barred on the footing of non-compliance with the protest procedure; the matter was remanded for verification of records and quantification of refund. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81255 Refund was not barred by limitation where the assessees had disputed the levy from the outset, endorsed payment under protest, and sent a written protest to the authorities. A prior departmental order had expressly recorded that the demands were honoured under protest and was never appealed, so that finding attained finality and could not later be ignored by the refund authority. Rule 233B was treated as substantially complied with, and the department failed to disprove protest compliance. The claim therefore could not be rejected as time-barred on the footing of non-compliance with the protest procedure; the matter was remanded for verification of records and quantification of refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81255