Excise refund limitation and valid protest requirements govern whether a time-barred claim can survive statutory rejection.

Refund claims under excise law must be lodged within the statutory limitation period, and a claim filed after that period cannot be entertained merely because the duty is alleged to have been collected without authority of law. A plea of payment under protest has legal effect only if the protest is made in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; an informal or procedurally defective protest does not save a time-barred claim. A belated plea not raised for the earlier period was also not accepted. The refund claims were therefore treated as barred by limitation and the rejection was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation and whether an alleged protest not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure could save the claims from the statutory time bar.

Analysis: The refund applications related to duty paid for clearances in 1981 and 1982, but were filed only on 29-3-1984. The relevant refund provision imposed a limitation period, and the Tribunal held that a claim filed beyond that period could not be entertained merely because the duty was said to have been collected without authority of law. The plea of payment under protest was rejected because the alleged protest was not shown to have been made in the manner required by Rule 233B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which required compliance with the prescribed procedure for a valid protest. A plea not raised below for the earlier period was also not accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claims were time-barred and the alleged protest did not comply with the prescribed rules, so the rejection of refund was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise law must be filed within the statutory limitation period, and an alleged protest has legal effect only if made in the manner prescribed by the governing rules.

---