https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87113 A letter of protest delivered to the Range Superintendent was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B because the Superintendent functioned as part of the Assistant Collector's office. The absence of a separate detailed representation was not fatal where the protest letter itself stated the grounds of objection. On that basis, duty paid under protest was recognised in substance, so the refund claim was not barred by limitation under Section 11B and remained admissible. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:03:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87113 A letter of protest delivered to the Range Superintendent was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B because the Superintendent functioned as part of the Assistant Collector's office. The absence of a separate detailed representation was not fatal where the protest letter itself stated the grounds of objection. On that basis, duty paid under protest was recognised in substance, so the refund claim was not barred by limitation under Section 11B and remained admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87113