https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385408 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not contest the finding that only payments made 'under protest' were eligible for refund. The rejection of the refund claim for the earlier period was upheld due to the absence of the 'payment under protest' endorsement. The first appellate authority's decision was not challenged, leading to the sanction of a partial refund of &8377; 38,48,095/-. The decision was pronounced on 04/09/2019. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385408 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not contest the finding that only payments made 'under protest' were eligible for refund. The rejection of the refund claim for the earlier period was upheld due to the absence of the 'payment under protest' endorsement. The first appellate authority's decision was not challenged, leading to the sanction of a partial refund of &8377; 38,48,095/-. The decision was pronounced on 04/09/2019. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385408