https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263643 The court upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to non-deposit under protest, as required by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant failed to follow the prescribed procedure, resulting in the claim being time-barred. While some refund amounts were allowed for proper notification, the claim lacking the "under protest" remark was rightfully rejected. The judge found no merit in the appellant's argument citing a Supreme Court case, emphasizing the importance of compliance with deposit under protest requirements. The appeal was dismissed based on the failure to adhere to the necessary procedure. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263643 The court upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to non-deposit under protest, as required by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant failed to follow the prescribed procedure, resulting in the claim being time-barred. While some refund amounts were allowed for proper notification, the claim lacking the "under protest" remark was rightfully rejected. The judge found no merit in the appellant's argument citing a Supreme Court case, emphasizing the importance of compliance with deposit under protest requirements. The appeal was dismissed based on the failure to adhere to the necessary procedure. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263643