https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124745 Central excise duty paid under protest was treated as valid where the assessee endorsed "protest" on the PLA. A separate letter or similar endorsement was sufficient to evidence protest, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not alter that character. The rule was held to be directory rather than mandatory, so its procedural requirements did not bar the refund claim on limitation grounds. The refund could not therefore be rejected as time-barred, and the assessee succeeded on the protest and limitation issue. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:44:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124745 Central excise duty paid under protest was treated as valid where the assessee endorsed "protest" on the PLA. A separate letter or similar endorsement was sufficient to evidence protest, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not alter that character. The rule was held to be directory rather than mandatory, so its procedural requirements did not bar the refund claim on limitation grounds. The refund could not therefore be rejected as time-barred, and the assessee succeeded on the protest and limitation issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124745