Contemporaneous protest can defeat limitation in refund claims, while freight deduction merits may require reconsideration on remand.

A contemporaneous written objection to inclusion of distribution charges was treated by the majority as a valid protest for limitation purposes, preserving the refund claims and defeating the bar of time. The majority relied on the letters' immediate challenge to the levy and the absence of final disposal of the representation. On the freight issue, the merits were not finally determined; because the lower authorities had disposed of the matter mainly on limitation and the legal position on freight deduction had since been clarified, the matter was remitted for reconsideration on the correct legal basis. A dissenting view held that protest was irrelevant under the then-applicable rule and that the claims remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation, including whether the appellants' letters constituted a valid protest and preserved the claims; (ii) whether the disputed distribution charges were deductible from assessable value as equalised freight.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation, including whether the appellants' letters constituted a valid protest and preserved the claims.

Analysis: The majority held that the correspondence dated 21-5-1970 was a protest for purposes of limitation. The letters contemporaneously challenged inclusion of distribution charges and the department had not finally disposed of the representation. Reliance was also placed on the fact that in a parallel proceeding involving the same parties and the same letter, the revisionary authority had accepted it as a protest. On that basis, the claims were treated as kept alive and not barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the refund claims were held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed distribution charges were deductible from assessable value as equalised freight.

Analysis: The majority did not decide the merits finally. Since the lower authorities had rejected the claims mainly on limitation, and the legal position on freight deductions had later been clarified by the Supreme Court, the matter was considered fit for fresh examination by the appellate authority on the correct legal basis.

Conclusion: The merits issue was left for reconsideration on remand.

Final Conclusion: The composite appellate order was set aside and both matters were remitted for fresh decision on merits, treating the refund claims as timely.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous representation clearly objecting to the levy can amount to a protest sufficient to defeat limitation in refund proceedings, and where limitation is wrongly assumed, the merits must be reconsidered on the correct legal position.

Concurring Opinion: None.

Dissenting Opinion: One Member held that the appeal forum was wrongly invoked, that the superintendent's direction could not confer jurisdiction on the Assistant Collector, that there was no estoppel against statute, that protest was irrelevant under Rule 11 as it then stood, and that the refund claims were barred and liable to be dismissed.

---