Refund claims paid under protest require proof of receipt by the proper authority; inconsistent records defeated limitation relief.

Refund of duty and interest was claimed as having been paid under protest, but the claim failed because the alleged protest letter was not shown to have been received by the jurisdictional authority handling the refund. The communication was addressed to the Superintendent (Preventive) rather than the Assistant Commissioner before whom the refund claim lay, and the record also showed inconsistency between the letter date and the envelope date sent under certificate of posting. On these facts, the assertion of payment under protest was not accepted, and the refund claim was treated as time barred and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty and interest, stated to have been paid under protest, was within limitation and maintainable.

Analysis: The refund claim turned on whether the appellant's letter dated 20.11.2008 asserting payment under protest had been received by the jurisdictional authority. The communication relied upon was addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive), Hassan, not to the Assistant Commissioner before whom the refund claim lay. The record also showed an internal inconsistency between the date of the letter relied upon and the date reflected on the envelope sent under certificate of posting. In these circumstances, the claim that the amount had been paid under protest was not accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be time barred and was rightly rejected.

---