https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86707 Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was enough to validly lodge a protest against duty payment. Delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent was accepted as effective delivery to the proper authority, and the absence of a separate detailed representation did not defeat the protest where reasons were stated in the letter itself. Because the duty was paid under valid protest, the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to the protested refund claims. The refund rejections were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:12:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86707 Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was enough to validly lodge a protest against duty payment. Delivery of the protest letter to the Superintendent was accepted as effective delivery to the proper authority, and the absence of a separate detailed representation did not defeat the protest where reasons were stated in the letter itself. Because the duty was paid under valid protest, the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to the protested refund claims. The refund rejections were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86707