Duty paid under protest can survive procedural defects where statutory purpose is met; refund limitation could not be applied.

Rule 233B required specified procedural steps for payment of duty under protest, including documentary endorsements, and non-observance could deem the payment to be without protest. Where the assessee had clearly intimated protest to the Superintendent and paid duty in that protest, substantial compliance was sufficient if the statutory purpose was achieved and the missing endorsements were impracticable in the circumstances. On that basis, the duty was treated as paid under protest, and the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid pursuant to protest could be treated as duty paid under protest despite non-compliance with every formality prescribed under Rule 233B, and whether the refund claim was therefore barred by limitation.

Analysis: Rule 233B prescribed the procedure for payment of duty under protest, including endorsement requirements on specified documents, and stated that non-observance of the rule would deem the duty to have been paid without protest. The assessee had addressed a protest to the Superintendent and had made payment under that protest, even though the particular documentary endorsements contemplated by the rule could not practically be made in the circumstances. The conduct of the assessee showed its clear intention to pay under protest, and the requirements were complied with to the extent possible. The failure to follow every formal step did not negate the protest where the statutory purpose was otherwise achieved.

Conclusion: Duty was held to have been paid under protest, and the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation was unsustainable.

---