Limitation for refund of reversed Modvat credit depends on valid protest and cannot be avoided by treating a voluntary reversal as pre-deposit.

A refund claim for Modvat credit reversed by the assessee was held subject to the limitation under Section 11B because the alleged protest was recorded only in internal registers and RT-12 returns, not in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B. The decision applied the Mafatlal Industries principle that a formal protest may be dispensed with only in limited situations, which were absent here because the reversal was voluntary and not made under a court order. The amount also could not be treated as a deposit under Section 35F, as it was reversed before any appeal and was not a pre-deposit pending litigation. The refund claim was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Modvat credit reversed by the assessee was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act when the reversal was merely marked "under protest" in records and RT-12 returns, and whether such reversal could be treated as a deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act so as to escape the limitation.

Analysis: The reversal of credit was admittedly made by the assessee on its own and not pursuant to any court order. The protest recorded in the register and RT-12 returns was not a protest in the manner required by Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. The principle in Mafatlal Industries permits dispensation with a formal protest only in specified situations, including payments made under court orders pending litigation. Those circumstances were absent here. The claim could not be recharacterised as a deposit under Section 35F because the amount was reversed before any appeal was filed and was not a pre-deposit pending appeal.

Conclusion: The refund claim remained subject to Section 11B and was correctly held time-barred. The assessee's reliance on protest entries and Section 35F failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere endorsement of protest in internal records or returns is insufficient to bypass the limitation under Section 11B unless the protest is made in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B, and an amount reversed on the assessee's own before appeal cannot be treated as a deposit under Section 35F.

---