Written protest under Rule 233B(1) saved the refund claim from limitation and defeated the time-bar objection.

A refund claim was held not to be time-barred where the assessee had disputed the levy from the outset and produced a written communication at registration stating that registration was sought and issued under protest. That letter was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 233B(1), so the duty paid during the relevant period was regarded as having been paid under protest. On that basis, the limitation objection under Section 11B failed and the refund application could not be rejected as barred by time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, or whether the duty had been paid under protest in compliance with Rule 233B(1) so as to save the claim from time bar.

Analysis: The appellants had consistently disputed the levy from the outset and produced a letter addressed to the Superintendent at the time of registration stating that the registration was sought and issued under protest. That communication was treated as sufficient compliance with the requirement of a written protest under Rule 233B(1). On that basis, the duty paid during the relevant period was regarded as having been paid under protest, with the consequence that the refund application could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the objection based on absence of a formal protest letter failed.

---