Refund limitation and protest payments: express protest preserved the claim, and the pre-amendment rule governed earlier duty payments.

Duty paid under an express and continuing protest was treated as non-final payment, so the refund claim was not barred by limitation. The protest remained effective because the assessees consistently disputed liability, filed a revised classification list, and clearly stated that payment was made under protest; the absence of a separate challenge to the classification list did not nullify that protest. For duty paid before the amendment of Rule 11, the governing limitation provision was the unamended rule in force on the date of payment, not the amended rule or the date of the refund application. The earlier rule therefore applied to the relevant period, and the refund claim for that period remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the payment of excise duty for the later period was made under protest so as to keep the refund claim outside the limitation bar; and (ii) whether the refund claim for duty paid before the amendment of Rule 11 was governed by the unamended rule or the amended rule.

Issue (i): Whether the payment of excise duty for the later period was made under protest so as to keep the refund claim outside the limitation bar.

Analysis: The respondents had consistently disputed their liability to pay duty on the goods, filed a revised classification list, and expressly stated that they would pay duty under protest. The protest was communicated in clear terms and was not shown to have been rejected by the department. The mere circumstance that the classification list was not separately appealed against did not extinguish the protest or convert subsequent payments into unconditional payments. A protest lodged while asserting non-liability remained effective for the purposes of the refund limitation rule.

Conclusion: The duty payments were held to have been made under protest, and the refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim for duty paid before the amendment of Rule 11 was governed by the unamended rule or the amended rule.

Analysis: The applicable limitation provision was determined by the date of payment of duty. Where duty had been paid before the amendment came into force, the right to seek refund in respect of those payments was governed by the unamended Rule 11, even if the refund application itself was filed later. The amended rule applied only to duty payments made after the amendment date. On that principle, the Collector (Appeals) had correctly applied the earlier rule to the relevant period in dispute.

Conclusion: The unamended Rule 11 was held to apply to duty paid before the amendment, and the refund claim for that period was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the finding of payment under protest and the application of the unamended limitation rule were both upheld, leaving the refund relief undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim is not time-barred where duty was paid under an express and continuing protest, and the governing limitation provision is the one in force on the date of duty payment, not the date of the refund application.

---