Refund limitation and protest rights: a buyer's bona fide protest can preserve excise refund claims despite procedural lapses under Rule 233B.

A buyer who bears excise duty under an exemption scheme may seek refund under Section 11B, and the right to claim refund includes the incidental right to lodge a protest against the duty liability. Rule 233B is framed for an assessee who pays duty, but strict non-observance of endorsements on invoices or RT 12 returns is only procedural and does not defeat a bona fide protest. On that basis, a protest filed by the buyer preserved the refund claim against limitation, and the procedural objection to the protest failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed by the buyer was barred by limitation for want of a protest letter before the jurisdictional officer and for non-compliance with Rule 233B.

Analysis: The buyer was treated as an assessee for the relevant naphtha cleared under the exemption scheme and was liable to duty in respect of quantities not utilised in the specified manner. Section 11B permits refund claims by a buyer who has borne the incidence of duty, and the right to seek refund carries with it the incidental right to lodge protest. Rule 233B, read strictly, is framed in terms of an assessee who pays duty, but the failure to make endorsements on invoices or RT 12 returns is procedural and does not invalidate a bona fide protest. The protest filed by the buyer therefore preserved the refund claim from the bar of limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, and the procedural objection to the protest failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal lacked merit and the order allowing refund-related relief to the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer who is liable to bear excise duty and who lodges a protest against that liability may claim the protection of protest for refund purposes, and mere non-observance of procedural formalities under Rule 233B does not defeat the refund claim on limitation.

---