https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99060 A letter addressed to the Assistant Collector intimating payment under protest was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B for purposes of Section 11B, and the refund claim for the post-protest period was therefore to be regarded as filed under protest. The Tribunal held that the remaining formal requirements of Rule 233B were procedural rather than mandatory, so rejection of the claim solely for non-compliance with those procedures could not be sustained. As the original rejection rested on limitation, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99060 A letter addressed to the Assistant Collector intimating payment under protest was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B for purposes of Section 11B, and the refund claim for the post-protest period was therefore to be regarded as filed under protest. The Tribunal held that the remaining formal requirements of Rule 233B were procedural rather than mandatory, so rejection of the claim solely for non-compliance with those procedures could not be sustained. As the original rejection rested on limitation, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99060