Refund claims must match the original protest; a classification-based demand could not rely on a different exemption-related protest.

A protest recorded against duty paid for availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not sustain a refund claim later based on alleged classification under a different tariff heading. A protest under Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must match the exact ground on which refund is sought, and a protest raised for one cause cannot be extended to an independent and unrelated basis for refund. On that principle, the refund was held not maintainable on the ground advanced, and the claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be sustained on the basis of a protest recorded against duty paid for availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., when the refund was later claimed on the footing that the goods were wrongly classified under a different tariff heading.

Analysis: The protest recorded on the challan was linked to the applicability of the exemption notification and the alleged crossing of the clearance limit. The refund claim, however, was founded on a distinct ground, namely, that the product should have been classified under a different tariff heading. A protest under Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must correspond to the very ground on which refund is later claimed. A protest raised for one issue cannot be extended to support a refund claim based on a different and independent cause.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable on the ground urged, and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the earlier protest did not cover the classification-based refund claim, leaving no basis for grant of refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest made for one stated cause of duty payment cannot be relied upon to claim refund on an unrelated ground.

---