Valid protest under Rule 233B preserved duty payment, but refund was time-barred after protest ceased on classification approval.

A statement recorded by the Superintendent during a classification dispute was treated as a valid protest under Rule 233B because it clearly showed that duty, if paid for clearance, would be paid under protest. The protest was held to continue until the classification list was finally approved at nil rate. The refund claim was nevertheless time-barred because it was filed more than six months after the protest ceased on approval of the classification list. The appeal therefore failed, even though the payment was accepted as made under protest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's statement recorded by the Superintendent constituted a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation after approval of the classification list.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's statement recorded by the Superintendent constituted a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The statement was read as a clear expression that clearances would be made pending approval of classification and, if duty had to be paid because the customer insisted on clearance, such payment would be under protest. The protest was treated as categorical and not ambiguous. It was also treated as sufficient though recorded by the Superintendent in the context of the classification dispute.

Conclusion: The statement was held to be a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation after approval of the classification list.

Analysis: The classification list was finally approved on 25-1-94 at nil rate of duty, so any protest ceased on that date. The refund claim was filed on 21-5-96, about two years and four months later, well beyond the prescribed period of six months. On that basis, the claim was held to be time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although the payment was treated as having been made under protest, the refund application was filed beyond the permissible period after the protest had ceased.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest recorded in the course of a classification dispute may satisfy Rule 233B if it clearly shows payment under protest, but refund must still be claimed within the prescribed limitation period counted from cessation of that protest.

---