Refund limitation under excise law may not apply where duty was paid under challenge and the levy was continuously contested.

Duty paid pursuant to a Tribunal order that was under challenge before the Supreme Court was treated as non-voluntary payment, so the absence of a separate protest letter did not defeat refund entitlement. Continuous contest of the levy through appeal proceedings was held to satisfy the protest requirement for refund purposes, and the six-month limitation in section 11B was therefore inapplicable to bar the claim. On that basis, the refund claim could not be rejected merely for want of a formal protest letter and was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the duty had been paid without a separate protest letter, and whether the appeal and court challenge could themselves amount to protest for the purpose of refund.

Analysis: The amount had been paid pursuant to the Tribunal's order, which was itself under challenge before the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, the payment was not voluntary in the ordinary sense, and the fact that no separate protest letter was filed did not alter its character. The reasoning adopted in prior Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's observation that duty paid under court orders pending appeal is payment under protest supported the view that the statutory requirement of protest stood satisfied when the assessee continuously contested the levy through appeal proceedings. On that footing, the six-month limitation in section 11B was held inapplicable to defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected for want of a separate protest letter, and section 11B did not bar the claim. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---