https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52663 Refund of excise duty claimed as paid under protest was held time-barred because an invoice endorsement alone did not satisfy Rule 233B; a valid protest required delivery of a protest letter to the proper officer and acknowledgment. The ruling treated mere declarations in invoices or under Rule 173B as insufficient to establish payment under protest. The claim also failed on unjust enrichment because Mafatlal Industries did not exclude that bar merely due to protest, and refund remained available only where the claimant proved the duty burden was not passed on. As the duty had been recovered from customers, the refund was held not maintainable. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:44:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52663 Refund of excise duty claimed as paid under protest was held time-barred because an invoice endorsement alone did not satisfy Rule 233B; a valid protest required delivery of a protest letter to the proper officer and acknowledgment. The ruling treated mere declarations in invoices or under Rule 173B as insufficient to establish payment under protest. The claim also failed on unjust enrichment because Mafatlal Industries did not exclude that bar merely due to protest, and refund remained available only where the claimant proved the duty burden was not passed on. As the duty had been recovered from customers, the refund was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52663