https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53151 For the period before Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 introduced a prescribed protest procedure, contemporaneous endorsements on gate passes, PLAs and RT 12 returns were treated as sufficient proof that duty was paid under protest, so refund claims were not barred by limitation. The text also states that refund remained subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment; where the appellate authority safeguarded revenue by allowing refund only if the duty burden had not been passed on to customers, no interference was called for. The impugned orders were sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:51:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53151 For the period before Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 introduced a prescribed protest procedure, contemporaneous endorsements on gate passes, PLAs and RT 12 returns were treated as sufficient proof that duty was paid under protest, so refund claims were not barred by limitation. The text also states that refund remained subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment; where the appellate authority safeguarded revenue by allowing refund only if the duty burden had not been passed on to customers, no interference was called for. The impugned orders were sustained and the Revenue's appeals failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53151