https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268929 Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not bar a refund claim where duty is paid under protest, because the second proviso excludes the six-month limitation. Contemporaneous protest letters, challans, and an unchallenged appellate finding supported the conclusion that payment was under protest, and the filing of an appeal against the levy reinforced that position. Section 11B also permits refund applications by any person entitled to claim refund, so a buyer-cum-manufacturer eligible for concessional procurement had locus to seek refund where the department denied the required certificate and the duty was deposited under protest. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore set aside, and refund with interest was held payable. en-us Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268929 Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not bar a refund claim where duty is paid under protest, because the second proviso excludes the six-month limitation. Contemporaneous protest letters, challans, and an unchallenged appellate finding supported the conclusion that payment was under protest, and the filing of an appeal against the levy reinforced that position. Section 11B also permits refund applications by any person entitled to claim refund, so a buyer-cum-manufacturer eligible for concessional procurement had locus to seek refund where the department denied the required certificate and the duty was deposited under protest. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore set aside, and refund with interest was held payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268929