Continuing protest doctrine preserves refund limitation where duty payment is challenged and the levy is actively pursued.

Duty paid under protest and followed by continued challenge to the levy was treated as a continuing protest for refund limitation purposes, so the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The protest was regarded as subsisting because the dispute was actively pursued after payment and before the show cause stage. The objection based on unjust enrichment was not decided on the merits and was left for examination by the competent authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was time-barred when the duty payment was made under protest and the proceedings were pursued to their logical conclusion.

Analysis: The payment was made before issuance of the show cause notice and the dispute was actively pursued thereafter. In these circumstances, the protest was treated as continuing, and the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of delay. The objection relating to unjust enrichment was left for examination by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty payment made under protest and followed by continued challenge to the levy is to be treated as a continuing protest for purposes of refund limitation.

---