https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84750 Refund claims filed after the commencement of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules were governed by that rule even if the duty related to an earlier period, because the provision was procedural. The limitation bar could be avoided only where duty was paid under a clear protest. The letter dated 11-6-1974 was not a valid protest: it did not expressly object to the levy or payment, and merely set out the appellant's position on packing charges while conditionally accepting the Department's view. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and the asserted protest was not established. en-us Wed, 25 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:21:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84750 Refund claims filed after the commencement of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules were governed by that rule even if the duty related to an earlier period, because the provision was procedural. The limitation bar could be avoided only where duty was paid under a clear protest. The letter dated 11-6-1974 was not a valid protest: it did not expressly object to the levy or payment, and merely set out the appellant's position on packing charges while conditionally accepting the Department's view. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and the asserted protest was not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84750