Refund claim under protest held within limitation where correspondence showed a clear objection to duty classification.

Payment marked as made under protest was treated as sufficient where the assessee's correspondence objected to excise duty on the ground that the product was not classifiable as polyurethane foam under the relevant tariff heading. Reading the letters together, the protest was held to be adequately recorded, so non-compliance with Rule 233B was rejected and the refund claim was not barred by limitation. The question whether refund was otherwise admissible was left to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for determination under Section 11B.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund was barred by limitation, and whether the requirement of payment under protest under Rule 233B had been complied with so as to keep the refund claim within time.

Analysis: The duty was recorded as having been paid under protest, and the correspondence relied upon showed that the assessee had objected to levy on the ground that the product was not classifiable as polyurethane foam under the relevant tariff heading. Reading the letters together, the protest was held to be adequately lodged and the clearance endorsements also reflected payment under protest. The procedural objection based on non-compliance with Rule 233B was therefore rejected, and the refund claim was held not to be hit by limitation. The question of eligibility to refund was left for the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the matter was remanded for decision on eligibility of refund under Section 11B.

---