Protest under duty payment need not state detailed grounds, but refund must be sought before the proper import authority.

A valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not require detailed grounds if the payer clearly states that duty is not payable in law; the proper officer's acknowledgment is sufficient evidence that payment was made under protest, so the objection to invalid protest failed. A refund claim for countervailing duty on re-import must be pursued before the proper authority having jurisdiction over the import transaction under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; filing it before another authority does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement, so the forum objection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the payment of countervailing duty was to be treated as payment under protest even though the protest letter did not state detailed grounds; (ii) Whether the refund claim could be pursued before the authority where it was filed, or had to be taken before the proper authority at the port of import.

Issue (i): Whether the payment of countervailing duty was to be treated as payment under protest even though the protest letter did not state detailed grounds.

Analysis: Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governs payment under protest. The governing principle applied was that the assessee is not required to particularise the grounds of protest in the letter itself, and a clear assertion that the duty is not payable in law is sufficient. The proper officer's role is only to acknowledge the protest as evidence that the duty was paid under protest.

Conclusion: The objection that the protest was invalid for want of detailed reasons was rejected, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be pursued before the authority where it was filed, or had to be taken before the proper authority at the port of import.

Analysis: The claim related to countervailing duty paid on re-import. The governing refund framework under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required the claim to be pursued before the proper authority having jurisdiction over the import transaction. Filing or processing the claim before another authority did not settle the jurisdictional requirement.

Conclusion: The view that the claim had to be taken before the proper authority at the port of import was upheld, and the assessee failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only on the protest issue, but failed on the jurisdictional issue relating to the forum for refund, with the consequence that the matter was left to be pursued before the proper authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid protest under Rule 233B does not require detailed grounds if the duty is asserted to be not payable in law, but refund of countervailing duty must be sought before the authority having proper jurisdiction over the import transaction.

---