Refund limitation and payment under protest require a clear dispute of duty liability, not mere procedural correspondence.

A refund claim filed beyond the statutory period will not escape limitation unless the assessee shows that duty was paid under protest. The Tribunal noted that correspondence seeking early 100% EOU status and guidance for clearing goods pending registration did not, expressly or by necessary implication, indicate a dispute of duty liability or payment under protest. The majority view held that Rule 233B requires a clear protest and that the letters did not satisfy even the substance of that requirement. The separate opinion accepted that strict formal compliance is not always essential, but still found no clear protest on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, and whether the duty could be treated as having been paid under protest so as to exclude the period of six months under the refund provision.

Analysis: The claim was filed after the expiry of the statutory period applicable to refund applications. The assessee relied on correspondence with the department concerning early grant of 100% E.O.U. status and claimed that this correspondence should be treated as sufficient indication that duty had been paid under protest. The Tribunal held that the letters only sought guidance for clearing goods pending registration and did not expressly or by necessary implication show that the assessee was disputing liability to pay duty or that payment was being made under protest. The majority view further held that Rule 233B required a clear protest and that, on the facts, the correspondence did not satisfy even the substance of that requirement. The separate opinion accepted that complete formal compliance with Rule 233B is not indispensable where protest is otherwise clear, but found no such clear indication on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation because the duty was not shown to have been paid under protest, and the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the extended period.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere request for early registration or procedural guidance, without a clear indication that duty liability is disputed or that payment is made under protest, does not amount to payment under protest for excluding the refund limitation period.

---