https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219160 A payment made at the Revenue's insistence, followed by a prompt protest, is treated as a deposit under protest rather than a routine duty payment. In that situation, the procedural requirements in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for regular clearances do not control the claim, and they cannot be used to defeat a substantive refund application. The text states that such a payment is not governed by the normal limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the refund claim remains admissible and the denial of refund on limitation is unsustainable. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219160 A payment made at the Revenue's insistence, followed by a prompt protest, is treated as a deposit under protest rather than a routine duty payment. In that situation, the procedural requirements in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for regular clearances do not control the claim, and they cannot be used to defeat a substantive refund application. The text states that such a payment is not governed by the normal limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the refund claim remains admissible and the denial of refund on limitation is unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219160