https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350206 Refund of duty and interest was claimed as having been paid under protest, but the claim failed because the alleged protest letter was not shown to have been received by the jurisdictional authority handling the refund. The communication was addressed to the Superintendent (Preventive) rather than the Assistant Commissioner before whom the refund claim lay, and the record also showed inconsistency between the letter date and the envelope date sent under certificate of posting. On these facts, the assertion of payment under protest was not accepted, and the refund claim was treated as time barred and rejected. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:45:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350206 Refund of duty and interest was claimed as having been paid under protest, but the claim failed because the alleged protest letter was not shown to have been received by the jurisdictional authority handling the refund. The communication was addressed to the Superintendent (Preventive) rather than the Assistant Commissioner before whom the refund claim lay, and the record also showed inconsistency between the letter date and the envelope date sent under certificate of posting. On these facts, the assertion of payment under protest was not accepted, and the refund claim was treated as time barred and rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350206