Payment under protest and substantial compliance with protest procedure saved the refund claim from limitation.

Duty paid under departmental insistence was treated as payment under protest because the assessee made contemporaneous protest entries in the PLA and RT-12 return and sent a fax intimating protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as directory, so substantial compliance with the protest procedure was sufficient. As a result, the limitation bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply, and the refund claim was held not time-barred. The matter was remitted for examination of the refund claim on merits, including the issue of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in view of the alleged payment under protest, and whether compliance with the procedure for protest under the excise rules was sufficient.

Analysis: The duty payment was found to have been made under compulsion after departmental insistence, with contemporaneous entries in the PLA and RT-12 return recording protest and a fax intimating payment under protest. The requirement under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as directory, and the facts showed substantial compliance with the procedural requirements for lodging protest. On that basis, the bar of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply.

Conclusion: The protest was held to be validly lodged and the refund claim was held not to be time barred. The matter was remitted for consideration of the refund claim on merits, including unjust enrichment.

---