https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243848 A central excise refund claim was not maintainable because the claimant failed to satisfy both limitation and the prescribed protest procedure. Under Rule 223B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, endorsement in the personal ledger account alone was insufficient; the protest also had to be reflected on the relevant gate passes and removal documents. The scheme of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment required proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. As the claim was time-barred for the major part and the procedural protest requirements were not fully met, the refund was rejected. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:27:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243848 A central excise refund claim was not maintainable because the claimant failed to satisfy both limitation and the prescribed protest procedure. Under Rule 223B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, endorsement in the personal ledger account alone was insufficient; the protest also had to be reflected on the relevant gate passes and removal documents. The scheme of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment required proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. As the claim was time-barred for the major part and the procedural protest requirements were not fully met, the refund was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243848