https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211970 Refund of excess excise duty on molasses remained maintainable because a prior departmental letter rejecting remission was only a non-adjudicatory communication and did not foreclose statutory examination of the refund claim. The claim was also not barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the duty had been paid under protest; the Court rejected the technical objection that the protest did not comply with Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and treated the relevant date under Explanation (B)(eb) as the date of adjustment after final assessment. The petitioner was held entitled to refund after adjustment of duty attributable to goods actually sold. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211970 Refund of excess excise duty on molasses remained maintainable because a prior departmental letter rejecting remission was only a non-adjudicatory communication and did not foreclose statutory examination of the refund claim. The claim was also not barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the duty had been paid under protest; the Court rejected the technical objection that the protest did not comply with Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and treated the relevant date under Explanation (B)(eb) as the date of adjustment after final assessment. The petitioner was held entitled to refund after adjustment of duty attributable to goods actually sold. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211970