Refund claim under protest: limitation bar inapplicable and alleged double payment through credit could not defeat relief.

A refund claim was treated as maintainable where the initial payment through TR-6 challan was expressly made under protest and the surrounding debarment order explained the later debit entry from the same transaction. On those facts, the statutory limitation bar under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applied to defeat the claim. The dispute was also not accepted as a case of impermissible double payment through PLA and CENVAT credit, so refund relief was not denied on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation despite the payment being made under protest, and whether the amount paid through PLA and CENVAT credit resulted in double payment entitling the assessee to refund.

Analysis: The payment of Rs. 4 lakh through TR-6 challan was expressly made under protest, and the surrounding facts showed that the assessee was under a debarment order that affected utilisation of credit for a limited period. The Court accepted that the subsequent debit entry, though not separately marked under protest, arose from the same protested payment and related proceedings. In such circumstances, the statutory bar of limitation under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked to defeat the refund claim. The Court further found that the refund dispute could not be treated as a case of impermissible double payment so as to sustain the denial of relief.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, the assessee's refund claim was held maintainable, and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.

---