https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122082 Payment made on the directions of preventive officers, together with prompt written objections to the preventive officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Range Superintendent, was treated as payment under protest. Because the duty liability was also contested in adjudication and the later demand notice was withdrawn, the protest was regarded as sufficiently recorded despite non-compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the procedural requirements were treated as directory in substance, so the six-month limitation under the proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The refund was therefore not time-barred and remained admissible. en-us Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122082 Payment made on the directions of preventive officers, together with prompt written objections to the preventive officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Range Superintendent, was treated as payment under protest. Because the duty liability was also contested in adjudication and the later demand notice was withdrawn, the protest was regarded as sufficiently recorded despite non-compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the procedural requirements were treated as directory in substance, so the six-month limitation under the proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The refund was therefore not time-barred and remained admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122082