https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84462 A refund claim paid under protest was not defeated by incomplete compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because an endorsement or letter of protest was treated as sufficient intimation to the department. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had marked some RT-12 returns as "under protest" and that the department was aware of and rejected the protest only on procedural grounds. Applying the settled principle that strict observance of Rule 233B formalities is not indispensable where protest is otherwise lodged, the procedural lapse did not bar refund. The claim was also not treated as time-barred. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:17:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84462 A refund claim paid under protest was not defeated by incomplete compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because an endorsement or letter of protest was treated as sufficient intimation to the department. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had marked some RT-12 returns as "under protest" and that the department was aware of and rejected the protest only on procedural grounds. Applying the settled principle that strict observance of Rule 233B formalities is not indispensable where protest is otherwise lodged, the procedural lapse did not bar refund. The claim was also not treated as time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84462