Refund claims under protest: recorded protest and no passing on of duty burden can defeat a limitation objection.

Duty paid under protest was treated as supporting a timely refund claim where the protest letter was already on record, and the absence of a separate formal endorsement on another document did not defeat that status. On the facts noted, the refund was not barred by limitation, and the department's refusal could not rest solely on time bar. The document also states that, where the assessee's explanation that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers was not dislodged, refund could not be denied on that basis. The stated outcome was that the refund claim was within time and maintainable, and the limitation-based denial was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty paid under protest was barred by limitation and whether refund could be denied for want of proof of non-passing of duty burden to buyers.

Analysis: The amount had been debited in the PLA pursuant to a protest letter already on record, and the absence of any separate endorsement on another document did not negate the protest in the circumstances of the case. The refund claim was therefore not hit by limitation. Since the department did not dislodge the assessee's explanation that the duty incidence had not been recovered from customers, rejection of refund solely on the ground of time bar was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be within time and maintainable, and denial of refund on limitation was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim supported by a recorded protest against duty payment cannot be rejected as time-barred merely for want of a further formal endorsement, and limitation cannot be invoked where the duty incidence is shown not to have been passed on.

---