Payment under protest for excise refund requires contemporaneous communication, and any refund remains subject to limitation.

A bare endorsement of "duty paid under protest" on gate passes was held insufficient to establish payment under protest for excise refund purposes where no contemporaneous protest, objection to classification, or intimation to the proper officer was shown in the assessment records, PLA entries, or RT-12 returns. The gate pass merely evidenced removal of goods and did not prove protest in the legal sense required under the self-removal procedure. Any otherwise admissible refund was also subject to the applicable limitation period, and could extend only to the six months immediately preceding the refund claim, not the full period claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mere endorsement of "duty paid under protest" on gate passes, without a contemporaneous protest or intimation to the proper officer, was sufficient to treat the duty as paid under protest for refund purposes; (ii) whether the refund claim was maintainable for the entire period claimed or was restricted by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether mere endorsement of "duty paid under protest" on gate passes, without a contemporaneous protest or intimation to the proper officer, was sufficient to treat the duty as paid under protest for refund purposes.

Analysis: The assessee was working under the Self Removal Procedure and was required to follow the prescribed assessment and return procedure. The record showed no protest letter, no objection to the classification, no endorsement in the PLA entries or RT-12 returns, and no intimation to the proper officer disputing the approved classification or rate of duty. The endorsement on the gate pass, by itself, was held insufficient because the gate pass only evidenced removal of goods and did not establish that payment had been made under protest in the legal sense required for refund.

Conclusion: The duty was not shown to have been paid under protest, and the assessee could not claim refund on that basis for the entire period.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was maintainable for the entire period claimed or was restricted by limitation.

Analysis: Even if duty had been paid under an classification, the refund would still be governed by the limitation applicable at the relevant time. The duty, if not payable on cotton blankets under the tariff item applied, could be refundable only to the extent permitted by limitation, namely for the period immediately preceding the refund application. The authority was directed to examine whether the goods were not chargeable under the tariff item and, if so, to confine refund to the legally permissible six-month period before the claim.

Conclusion: Refund, if otherwise due, was limited to the period of six months immediately preceding the refund claim and not for the entire span claimed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish payment under protest, and the refund entitlement, if any, survived only within the statutory limitation period. The matter was sent back for fresh examination on that limited question.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund of excise duty, a bare endorsement on a gate pass is not enough to constitute payment under protest; protest must be contemporaneous and communicated in the manner required by the assessment and self-removal procedure, and any refund otherwise admissible remains subject to the applicable limitation period.

---