Refund limitation and protest requirements: a duty challenge can operate as protest even without a formal letter.

A challenge to the duty demand can operate as a protest for refund purposes, so the absence of a separate formal protest letter under Rule 233B does not by itself make the claim time-barred. Applying prior Tribunal decisions, the CESTAT held that the appeal against confirmation of duty was sufficient to evidence protest and that limitation could not be invoked to defeat the refund on the ground of no formal protest. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in the absence of a formal letter of protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The appeal against the confirmation of duty was treated as a protest, and the absence of a separate formal protest letter was held not to defeat the claim. Relying on prior Tribunal decisions, the Court held that the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred on that ground.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to the duty demand can operate as a protest for the purpose of defeating a limitation objection, even if no separate formal protest is lodged.

---