https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48621 A valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not require detailed grounds if the payer clearly states that duty is not payable in law; the proper officer's acknowledgment is sufficient evidence that payment was made under protest, so the objection to invalid protest failed. A refund claim for countervailing duty on re-import must be pursued before the proper authority having jurisdiction over the import transaction under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; filing it before another authority does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement, so the forum objection was upheld. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:57:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48621 A valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not require detailed grounds if the payer clearly states that duty is not payable in law; the proper officer's acknowledgment is sufficient evidence that payment was made under protest, so the objection to invalid protest failed. A refund claim for countervailing duty on re-import must be pursued before the proper authority having jurisdiction over the import transaction under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; filing it before another authority does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement, so the forum objection was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48621