https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123997 A payment debited in the PLA and expressly marked as made under protest was treated as a deposit, so the limitation bar under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The absence of a protest endorsement in the TR-6 challan did not alter that position, and rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable because it concerns protest for future clearances rather than payment against a show cause notice for past clearances. Refund was also not defeated by unjust enrichment, as a chartered accountant's certificate and affidavit showed the duty had not been recovered from customers and there was no contrary evidence. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:36:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123997 A payment debited in the PLA and expressly marked as made under protest was treated as a deposit, so the limitation bar under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply. The absence of a protest endorsement in the TR-6 challan did not alter that position, and rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable because it concerns protest for future clearances rather than payment against a show cause notice for past clearances. Refund was also not defeated by unjust enrichment, as a chartered accountant's certificate and affidavit showed the duty had not been recovered from customers and there was no contrary evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123997