Refund claim for unprotested pre-deposit held governed by statutory refund scheme and time limit.

A payment made while a stay application was pending, if not shown to be a formal pre-deposit or a protested payment under Rule 233B, is treated as a refund claim governed by Section 11B. Because no protest was established and the claim was filed beyond six months from payment, the Tribunal held that the refund was not maintainable. The appellant had not shown any separate entitlement to refund outside the statutory scheme, so the issue was decided against it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount paid by the appellant could be treated as a pre-deposit made in the course of appeal, and whether the refund claim was maintainable in view of Section 11B.

Analysis: The amount was paid while the stay application was pending and was not shown to have been deposited as a formal pre-deposit. No protest under Rule 233B was established. The claim was filed beyond six months from the date of payment. The Tribunal held that refund claims of this nature fall within the scope of Section 11B, and that the appellant had not brought the case within any separate entitlement to refund outside that provision.

Conclusion: The claim for refund was not maintainable and the issue was answered against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made during pendency of stay proceedings, if not shown to be a protested pre-deposit, is governed by the statutory refund scheme under Section 11B, and a delayed claim without proof of protest is not maintainable.

---