Payment under protest for refund limitation applies when duty is paid while contesting liability through statutory appeal.

Where an assessee contests excise duty liability through a statutory appeal or similar challenge, the duty paid in that context is treated as payment under protest for limitation purposes under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even without a separate written protest under Rule 233B before payment. Applying this reading of Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal treated payment made before the appeal as payment under protest on the facts stated. The refund claim was therefore not time-barred, and the departmental objection failed, leaving the refund claim maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation on the ground that the duty had not been paid under protest.

Analysis: The limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply where duty has been paid under protest. The Tribunal read the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries to mean that payment made by an assessee who contests the levy through appeal or other statutory challenge is payment under protest, even if a separate written protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not filed before payment. On the facts, the assessee had paid the duty before filing its appeal against the assessment and the payment was therefore treated as under protest.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the objection raised by the department failed.

Final Conclusion: The department's appeal was rejected and the assessee's refund claim was held to be maintainable on the footing that the duty had been paid under protest.

Ratio Decidendi: When an assessee contests duty liability through statutory appeal or similar proceedings, the duty paid in that context is treated as payment under protest for purposes of the refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---