https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116650 Duty deposited during pending adjudication and expressly paid under protest was treated as a deposit against the demand, not a voluntary payment attracting the normal limitation period. The refund claim was therefore not barred by time. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held inapplicable because the payment was made to contest the levy itself, and the assessee had succeeded in appeal. The absence of a formal protest letter under Rule 233B did not defeat the refund claim, and the duty became refundable once the demand was set aside. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:26:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116650 Duty deposited during pending adjudication and expressly paid under protest was treated as a deposit against the demand, not a voluntary payment attracting the normal limitation period. The refund claim was therefore not barred by time. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held inapplicable because the payment was made to contest the levy itself, and the assessee had succeeded in appeal. The absence of a formal protest letter under Rule 233B did not defeat the refund claim, and the duty became refundable once the demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116650