Refund claim cannot be denied as time-barred when duty was paid under protest and Rule 233B was substantially complied with.

A refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred where the disputed duty payment was endorsed as made under protest and the requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were substantially complied with. The challan itself recorded protest, and the authorities had already accepted protest for the larger refunded portion, so a narrow reading of earlier correspondence could not defeat the remaining claim. On that basis, the rejection of the balance refund was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential relief in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected as time-barred when the duty payment was endorsed as made under protest and the requirements of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were substantially complied with.

Analysis: The refund arose after the underlying duty demand had been set aside as time-barred. The record showed that the challan covering the disputed amount carried an endorsement that duty was paid under protest. The lower authorities had accepted protest in respect of the larger refunded amount but rejected only the balance on a narrow reading of the earlier correspondence. Since the payment itself was endorsed as under protest, the statutory requirement was met and the refund could not be denied on the ground adopted by the department.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential relief in accordance with law.

---