https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53297 Payment marked as made under protest was treated as sufficient where the assessee's correspondence objected to excise duty on the ground that the product was not classifiable as polyurethane foam under the relevant tariff heading. Reading the letters together, the protest was held to be adequately recorded, so non-compliance with Rule 233B was rejected and the refund claim was not barred by limitation. The question whether refund was otherwise admissible was left to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for determination under Section 11B. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:00:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53297 Payment marked as made under protest was treated as sufficient where the assessee's correspondence objected to excise duty on the ground that the product was not classifiable as polyurethane foam under the relevant tariff heading. Reading the letters together, the protest was held to be adequately recorded, so non-compliance with Rule 233B was rejected and the refund claim was not barred by limitation. The question whether refund was otherwise admissible was left to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for determination under Section 11B. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53297