Refund on payment under protest upheld where duty was paid under interim court orders and claims were filed within limitation.

Duty paid in compliance with interim High Court orders pending proceedings is treated as payment under protest, so a separate formal protest is not required for refund purposes. The tribunal also found that the refund claims were filed within the prescribed six-month limitation period. On that basis, rejection of the refund claims for the seven Bills of Entry was not sustainable, and the refund could not be denied either for absence of protest or as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods cleared pursuant to interim orders of the High Court were to be treated as cleared under protest for the purpose of refund, and whether the refund claims were within limitation.

Analysis: The clearances in question were made under the interim orders of the High Court. A payment made under a court order pending proceedings is treated as a payment under protest, and it is not necessary to follow the formal protest procedure. The record also showed that the refund claims were filed within the prescribed six-month period.

Conclusion: The clearances had to be treated as under protest, and the refund claims could not be rejected on the ground that no protest was shown or that the claims were time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of refund for the seven Bills of Entry was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty paid in compliance with a court order during the pendency of proceedings is treated as payment under protest, and refund cannot be denied on the basis of failure to lodge a separate formal protest when the claim is otherwise within limitation.

---