Protest letter post-duty payment not valid refund claim; limitation period cannot be extended. Appeal dismissed.

The court upheld the Collector's decision to reject the refund claim for duty paid on 21-11-1980, ruling that a protest letter filed after duty payment does not qualify as a claim for refund and cannot extend the limitation period for filing refund claims. The appeal challenging the Collector's decision was dismissed, emphasizing that refund claims must adhere to the prescribed limitation period, and subsequent protest letters cannot alter this requirement.

---

---

Issues: Refund claims of additional duty of customs, validity of duty payment under protest, bar of limitation in refund claims, rejection of refund claim based on protest letter date, interpretation of protest letter as a claim for refund.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, regarding the refund claims of additional duty of customs paid by M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. The Assistant Collector had initially sanctioned the refund claims for duty paid on specific dates. However, the Collector issued a notice under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act, expressing disagreement with the Assistant Collector's decision. After adjudication, the Collector held that the duty paid on a certain date was not eligible for a refund and ordered the recovery of that amount, setting aside the Assistant Collector's order in that regard. The appeal challenges this decision of the Collector.

The appellants argued that the duty had been paid under protest, citing a letter dated 21-2-1981 as evidence. They contended that this should exempt them from any bar of limitation in filing refund claims. The Collector upheld the refund orders for certain dates but rejected the claim for duty paid on 21-11-1980, stating that the payment was not under protest as the protest letter was dated after the duty payment and the refund claim was time-barred. The appellants further argued that the Collector was not justified in rejecting the refund claim based on the bar of limitation, as this ground was not raised in the show cause notice.

The Collector, in the notice dated 17-8-1982, mentioned the history of the case, including the protest letter dated 21-2-1981. The Collector expressed a tentative view that the Assistant Collector's interpretation of the refund order was incorrect due to the protest letter not being related to the duty payment on 21-11-1980. The appellants relied on a legal precedent but the judgment clarified that a protest filed after duty payment cannot be considered a claim for refund. The judgment emphasized that any claim for refund must be within the prescribed limitation period, and a protest letter filed subsequently cannot save payments made earlier from the bar of limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Collector's decision to set aside the Assistant Collector's order regarding the duty paid on 21-11-1980. The appeal was dismissed based on the interpretation that a protest letter filed after duty payment does not constitute a claim for refund and cannot extend the limitation period for filing refund claims.

---