Limitation does not erase excise duty liability; refund barred where duty was paid under protest and demand stood on merits.

Limitation does not extinguish substantive excise duty liability, and a refund claim cannot succeed merely because the demand was not pursued for the full period. Where duty was paid under protest and the underlying demand was upheld on merits, the Larger Bench precedent applied to bar refund. The attempt to distinguish the earlier ruling on the basis that it involved only a limitation challenge was rejected because that matter also involved a merits challenge and payment under protest. The refund claim was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excise duty paid under protest when the demand had been upheld on merits, though for a limited period on the question of limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench ruling that limitation does not wipe out the substantive liability and that, where duty has been paid under protest, refund cannot be claimed merely because the demand was not pursued for the entire period. The attempt to distinguish the precedent on the ground that the earlier case involved only a limitation challenge was rejected, since the earlier matter had also involved a merits challenge and the payment there too had been under protest. On that basis, the precedent was held to govern the present refund claim.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund of the duty paid under protest, and the claim was rejected.

---