Refund of duty paid under protest is not time-barred where payment was made against the demand and the levy was set aside.

Duty deposited during pending adjudication and expressly paid under protest was treated as a deposit against the demand, not a voluntary payment attracting the normal limitation period. The refund claim was therefore not barred by time. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held inapplicable because the payment was made to contest the levy itself, and the assessee had succeeded in appeal. The absence of a formal protest letter under Rule 233B did not defeat the refund claim, and the duty became refundable once the demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty paid pending adjudication and under protest was barred by limitation, and whether absence of a formal protest letter under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could defeat the refund claim.

Analysis: The duty amount had been deposited during the pendency of adjudication and was expressly recorded as paid under protest. Payment made to contest the levy cannot be treated as a voluntary deposit so as to apply the normal limitation period mechanically. The procedural requirements of Rule 233B govern continued payment of duty on clearances under protest and were held not applicable to the present situation, where the deposit was made against the demand itself and the assessee had succeeded in appeal.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred, and the absence of a Rule 233B protest letter did not disentitle the assessee to refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty deposited pending adjudication and under protest becomes refundable when the demand is set aside, and such refund cannot be denied on the basis of the ordinary limitation period or want of formal protest under Rule 233B.

---