Refund limitation under Central Excise turns on whether protest preceded the duty payment; earlier clearances were time-barred.

A protest under the Central Excise refund regime must precede or clearly cover the relevant duty payment; a later protest cannot protect earlier clearances from the refund limitation bar. On that basis, refunds relating to clearances made before the protest letter were time-barred, and the sanctioned refund to that extent was set aside. For the separate refund claim linked to the invoice of 14-11-96, the record did not show whether duty had been paid under protest or whether limitation applied, so the matter required fresh factual examination. The claim was remanded for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims relating to clearances made before the protest letter were barred by limitation and could be retained as sanctioned refund. (ii) Whether the refund claim of Rs. 8,987/- required fresh examination as to whether the duty had been paid under protest and whether the claim was time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims relating to clearances made before the protest letter were barred by limitation and could be retained as sanctioned refund.

Analysis: The protest letter was filed on 14-11-96, whereas the relevant clearances giving rise to two refund amounts had taken place on 15-10-96. A protest recorded after the clearances could not cover those earlier payments. In such circumstances, the claims had to be examined under the limitation provision governing refunds.

Conclusion: The refund claims of Rs. 3,675/- and Rs. 3,442/- were held to be time-barred and the sanction of refund to that extent was set aside in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim of Rs. 8,987/- required fresh examination as to whether the duty had been paid under protest and whether the claim was time-barred.

Analysis: For the invoice dated 14-11-96, the protest letter was of the same date. The question whether this payment was in fact covered by protest, and therefore whether limitation applied, had not been examined by the original authority. A fresh factual determination was necessary before a lawful decision on refund could be made.

Conclusion: The refund claim of Rs. 8,987/- was remanded for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of reversing the refund granted for the two earlier payments and the balance refund issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest under the Central Excise refund regime must precede or clearly cover the relevant duty payment and clearance; a later protest does not save earlier payments from the limitation bar.

---