Refund limitation and deemed protest were applied to reject admission where no substantial question of law arose.

Refund disputes involving limitation and whether duty was paid under protest were assessed by applying Mafatlal Industries, with the Commissioner (Appeals) treating the assessee's deposit during pending appeal proceedings as a deemed protest. On that reasoning, the refund claim was held not to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal further found that no substantial question of law arose for exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction at the admission stage, and the appeals were therefore not admitted and were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals deserved admission in view of the refund dispute based on limitation and the plea that the duty was not deposited under protest.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries and treated the assessee's deposit during the pendency of appeal proceedings as deemed protest, thereby holding that the refund claim was not barred by limitation. On that basis, no substantial question of law was found to arise for exercise of the Tribunal's discretionary jurisdiction at the stage of admission.

Conclusion: The appeals were not admitted and were rejected.

---