https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119032 Refund limitation on Cenvat credit reversals turned on whether protest was validly communicated under Rule 233B. Where protest letters were couriered to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the departmental record did not deny receipt, the requirement was treated as substantially complied with, so the refund claim for the reversals covered by Sl. Nos. 2 to 4 was not time-barred. By contrast, an appeal pending for an earlier and different period did not amount to protest for the later reversal of Rs. 27,647 made on 31-3-02, so that claim remained barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:46:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119032 Refund limitation on Cenvat credit reversals turned on whether protest was validly communicated under Rule 233B. Where protest letters were couriered to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the departmental record did not deny receipt, the requirement was treated as substantially complied with, so the refund claim for the reversals covered by Sl. Nos. 2 to 4 was not time-barred. By contrast, an appeal pending for an earlier and different period did not amount to protest for the later reversal of Rs. 27,647 made on 31-3-02, so that claim remained barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119032