https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105061 Filing a classification list declaring the goods non-excisable, followed by departmental approval, was treated as sufficient notice of protest where the department knew duty was being paid under protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was regarded as procedural and directory, not mandatory, so failure to follow the formal endorsement procedure did not make the payment unprotested or render the refund claim time-barred. The Revenue's limitation objection was rejected, and the refund claim was held maintainable. en-us Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:09:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105061 Filing a classification list declaring the goods non-excisable, followed by departmental approval, was treated as sufficient notice of protest where the department knew duty was being paid under protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was regarded as procedural and directory, not mandatory, so failure to follow the formal endorsement procedure did not make the payment unprotested or render the refund claim time-barred. The Revenue's limitation objection was rejected, and the refund claim was held maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105061