Written protest against duty reversal can protect a refund claim from limitation for the covered period.

A written protest against duty reversal, when submitted to the department, was treated as sufficient to preserve the refund claim from limitation for the period covered by that protest. The absence of the same protest recital in the Section 14 statement did not defeat the earlier written intimation. Because no protest was shown before 02.08.2000, reversals made prior to that date remained outside the protected period and the refund claim for that segment stayed time-barred. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration of the refund accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation on the ground that the duty reversal was not made under protest and whether the protest letter dated 02.08.2000 was sufficient compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The refund was rejected only on limitation. The protest letter dated 02.08.2000 showed the appellant's intention that the reversal was made under protest, and its submission to the Superintendent was held sufficient for that purpose. The absence of the same recital in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not negate the earlier written protest. The authority distinguished the relied-upon precedent because, unlike that case, a protest letter had in fact been filed here. On the facts, reversals made on or after 02.08.2000 were treated as protected by protest, while the period prior to that date remained without protest.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred for the period covered by the protest letter, but the claim for the period prior to 02.08.2000 remained barred. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of recognition of protest for the later period, with the matter sent back for re-processing of the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A written protest intimating duty reversal under protest, when submitted to the department, is sufficient to save the claim from limitation for the period covered by that protest, even if the contemporaneous register entry or later statement does not expressly repeat the protest.

---