Duty paid under protest can preserve refund rights where written dissent clearly shows objection despite procedural defects.

Duty paid under clear written protest is not subject to a hyper-technical reading of protest formalities, and limitation under Section 11B does not bar refund where the payment was genuinely disputed. A declaration under Rule 173B, together with a request for provisional assessment and accompanying letter expressly stating dissent from the levy, was treated as sufficient protest in substance under Rule 233B. The writing need not follow a particular format if it clearly records objection to the duty demand. The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of a formal protest letter under the prescribed procedure. (ii) Whether the declaration under Rule 173B and the request for provisional assessment constituted a valid protest under Rule 233B.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of a formal protest letter under the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply where duty is paid under protest. The protest requirement under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is procedural and is intended to record that the payment is disputed. A narrow or hyper-technical construction was rejected, and the absence of a particular format was held not decisive where the writing otherwise conveyed clear dissent.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration under Rule 173B and the request for provisional assessment constituted a valid protest under Rule 233B.

Analysis: The declaration and accompanying letter expressly recorded disagreement with the levy and stated that duty was being paid under protest while the classification dispute remained pending. The writing was sufficient to show that the assessee was contesting the levy and had lodged protest in substance. Rule 233B could not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the substantive protection in Section 11B.

Conclusion: The declaration and letter constituted a valid protest under Rule 233B.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the assessee's refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred, and the matter was sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is shown to have been paid under a clear written protest, procedural requirements for lodging protest cannot be construed hyper-technically so as to defeat the statutory benefit against limitation under Section 11B.

---