https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87367 Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as having been substantially complied with where a protest letter was delivered to the Range Superintendent, who was accepted as the proper officer, the department acknowledged payment under protest, and a detailed representation followed within three months. On those facts, the protest remained valid and kept the refund claim alive against the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Because the dispute involved a one-time debit in PLA and a one-time protest, Rule 233B(4) was not material. The assessee was held entitled to refund and consequential recredit. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:19:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87367 Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as having been substantially complied with where a protest letter was delivered to the Range Superintendent, who was accepted as the proper officer, the department acknowledged payment under protest, and a detailed representation followed within three months. On those facts, the protest remained valid and kept the refund claim alive against the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Because the dispute involved a one-time debit in PLA and a one-time protest, Rule 233B(4) was not material. The assessee was held entitled to refund and consequential recredit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87367