https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190036 A challenge to the duty demand can operate as a protest for refund purposes, so the absence of a separate formal protest letter under Rule 233B does not by itself make the claim time-barred. Applying prior Tribunal decisions, the CESTAT held that the appeal against confirmation of duty was sufficient to evidence protest and that limitation could not be invoked to defeat the refund on the ground of no formal protest. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Mon, 11 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:19:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190036 A challenge to the duty demand can operate as a protest for refund purposes, so the absence of a separate formal protest letter under Rule 233B does not by itself make the claim time-barred. Applying prior Tribunal decisions, the CESTAT held that the appeal against confirmation of duty was sufficient to evidence protest and that limitation could not be invoked to defeat the refund on the ground of no formal protest. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190036