https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118852 A refund claim under the Central Excise regime failed because duty was not validly paid under protest for purposes of Section 11B. The Tribunal held that Rule 233B required strict compliance, including submission of a protest letter to the proper officer for acknowledgement, and that an endorsement on invoices and challans was insufficient. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition in Mafatlal Industries, it concluded that the payment could not be treated as payment under protest. The refund claims were therefore time-barred and the Revenue's appeals succeeded. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:45:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118852 A refund claim under the Central Excise regime failed because duty was not validly paid under protest for purposes of Section 11B. The Tribunal held that Rule 233B required strict compliance, including submission of a protest letter to the proper officer for acknowledgement, and that an endorsement on invoices and challans was insufficient. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition in Mafatlal Industries, it concluded that the payment could not be treated as payment under protest. The refund claims were therefore time-barred and the Revenue's appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118852