Payment under protest under Rule 233B cannot arise from an unchallenged demand order; refund claim failed.

Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits payment under protest only in the manner and within the limited situations the rule contemplates. Where duty is paid pursuant to an adjudication order confirming demand, and the assessee does not appeal or seek revision against that order, the payment cannot be treated as under protest merely because a similar issue was contested for another period. An appeal may itself operate as protest against the demand, but no appeal was filed against the relevant orders here. Refund was therefore not admissible, and rejection of the claim was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible for duty paid pursuant to orders confirming demand when those orders were not appealed against, and whether such payment could still be treated as payment under protest.

Analysis: Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits payment under protest only in the manner and within the situations contemplated by the rule. Where an assessee has a remedy of appeal or revision against the order giving rise to the duty demand, the rule contemplates pursuit of that remedy, and the proviso allows protest only during the period available for filing such appeal or revision and while it is pending. The rule does not support the contention that duty paid pursuant to an unchallenged adjudication order becomes payment under protest merely because a similar issue was contested in another period. Filing of an appeal may operate as a protest against the demand, but here no appeal was filed against the relevant orders confirming the duty demand.

Conclusion: Refund was not admissible, and the rejection of the refund claim was justified.

---