Duty paid under protest can preserve a refund claim from limitation when protest is clearly communicated and not rejected.

Clear communication to the jurisdictional officer that duty was being paid under protest was held sufficient to establish protest for refund purposes. In the absence of any explicit departmental rejection of that protest, the lower authority's contrary view was found misdirected. The payment was therefore treated as made under protest, with the result that the refund claim was not barred by limitation and the adverse order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty paid by the appellant for the relevant period was paid under protest so as to save the refund claim from limitation.

Analysis: The appellant had addressed a letter to the jurisdictional officer stating that production and clearance of coal for the relevant period were being made on payment of duty under protest. The communication was held to be sufficient intimation of protest. The finding that the protest was not acceptable was rejected because there was no material showing any explicit rejection by the department. In the absence of such rejection, the protest could not be ignored, and the lower authority's contrary view was held to be misdirected.

Conclusion: The duty was held to have been paid under protest, and the refund claim was not hit by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest against duty payment, once clearly communicated to the jurisdictional authority and not explicitly rejected, is sufficient to treat the payment as made under protest for refund purposes.

---