Refund limitation and payment under protest: recorded protest and returns preserved the refund claim despite procedural non-compliance.

Duty paid on a provisional basis with an express reservation of the right to claim refund on final valuation was treated as payment under protest. Because the protest was also recorded in the statutory records and monthly returns, it was sufficiently communicated to the department. Non-compliance with the procedural requirement in Rule 233(b) of the Central Excise Rules did not alter that character. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation, and rejection of the claim on limitation was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation when duty was paid under protest and the protest was reflected in the records and monthly returns, and whether non-compliance with Rule 233(b) of the Central Excise Rules rendered the claim time barred.

Analysis: The payment letter stated that duty was being paid on a provisional basis and that the right to claim refund on final determination of value was reserved. The statutory records also recorded that payment was made under protest, and the same position was reflected in the monthly returns. On these facts, the protest was sufficiently communicated to the department, and the absence of strict compliance with the procedural requirement did not take away the character of the payment as one made under protest.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time barred, and the rejection on limitation was not sustainable.

---