Refund of duty on imported goods requires credible proof of protest, and an unchallenged assessment cannot be reopened indirectly.

Refund of duty on imported goods was denied because the assessee could not produce credible proof that the relevant Bills of Entry were filed under protest; a vague affidavit and a later protest were insufficient to treat the payment as protested. The Tribunal also held that the appeal was not maintainable because the assessment orders for the Bills of Entry had not been separately challenged, so the refund dispute could not be reopened indirectly through the appeal. The rejection of refund was sustained and the appeal failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim arising from payment of duty on imported goods was allowable in the absence of proof that the relevant Bills of Entry were filed under protest; (ii) Whether the appeal was maintainable when the assessment of the Bills of Entry had not been challenged.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim arising from payment of duty on imported goods was allowable in the absence of proof that the relevant Bills of Entry were filed under protest.

Analysis: The plea that duty paid during pendency of the exemption dispute must be treated as payment under protest was rejected. The cited precedent was found distinguishable because, in that case, a protest had been lodged before the disputed period, whereas here no reliable evidence showed that protest had been made for the Bills of Entry for which refund was claimed. The affidavit produced was held to be vague, as it did not specify the date or authority before whom protest was lodged. The record also showed that the appellant's own protest related only to a later stage and not to the impugned imports.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected for want of proof of protest, and the decision was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was maintainable when the assessment of the Bills of Entry had not been challenged.

Analysis: The assessment orders for the Bills of Entry were not separately challenged before the appellate authority. In the absence of such challenge, the refund dispute could not be reopened through the present appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of refund was sustained and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of duty paid on assessed Bills of Entry cannot be granted without credible proof that the payment was made under protest, and an unchallenged assessment cannot be indirectly questioned through a refund appeal.

---