https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126245 A contemporaneous protest recorded in the statutory registers at the time of credit reversal was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a refund application filed within three months was not time-barred on a hyper-technical view of protest. Once the limitation objection failed, the refund claim still had to be examined for unjust enrichment under the first proviso to Section 11B and the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because that factual inquiry had not been undertaken, the matter was remanded for fresh determination limited to unjust enrichment. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:39:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126245 A contemporaneous protest recorded in the statutory registers at the time of credit reversal was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and a refund application filed within three months was not time-barred on a hyper-technical view of protest. Once the limitation objection failed, the refund claim still had to be examined for unjust enrichment under the first proviso to Section 11B and the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because that factual inquiry had not been undertaken, the matter was remanded for fresh determination limited to unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126245