https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337944 A written protest against duty reversal, when submitted to the department, was treated as sufficient to preserve the refund claim from limitation for the period covered by that protest. The absence of the same protest recital in the Section 14 statement did not defeat the earlier written intimation. Because no protest was shown before 02.08.2000, reversals made prior to that date remained outside the protected period and the refund claim for that segment stayed time-barred. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration of the refund accordingly. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337944 A written protest against duty reversal, when submitted to the department, was treated as sufficient to preserve the refund claim from limitation for the period covered by that protest. The absence of the same protest recital in the Section 14 statement did not defeat the earlier written intimation. Because no protest was shown before 02.08.2000, reversals made prior to that date remained outside the protected period and the refund claim for that segment stayed time-barred. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration of the refund accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337944