https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126071 Duty paid under departmental insistence was treated as payment under protest because the assessee made contemporaneous protest entries in the PLA and RT-12 return and sent a fax intimating protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as directory, so substantial compliance with the protest procedure was sufficient. As a result, the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply, and the refund claim was held not time-barred. The matter was remitted for examination of the refund claim on merits, including the issue of unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:14:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126071 Duty paid under departmental insistence was treated as payment under protest because the assessee made contemporaneous protest entries in the PLA and RT-12 return and sent a fax intimating protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as directory, so substantial compliance with the protest procedure was sufficient. As a result, the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply, and the refund claim was held not time-barred. The matter was remitted for examination of the refund claim on merits, including the issue of unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126071