Refund limitation and protest procedure under Central Excise law: informal objections did not amount to payment under protest.

Refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was held to apply because the duty was not paid under protest. Although payment under protest can exclude the limitation bar, Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a proper letter of protest and compliance with the prescribed procedure. The letters relied upon were treated only as expressions of disagreement, not valid protests, and the assessee continued paying duty without procedural compliance. As there was no substantial observance of Rule 233B, the deeming consequence operated that the duty was paid without protest, rendering the refund claim time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the duty was not paid under protest.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 11B does not apply where duty is paid under protest, but Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires the assessee to deliver a letter of protest and comply with the prescribed procedure. The letters relied upon by the appellant were held to be expressions of disagreement rather than genuine letters of protest, and the appellant continued to pay duty thereafter without following the procedural requirements. The record also showed no substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and non-observance of the rule attracted the deeming consequence that duty was paid without protest.

Conclusion: The duty was not paid under protest, and the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B; the finding is against the assessee.

---