Duty paid under protest preserves refund claims, and unresolved protest keeps limitation from defeating recovery.

Duty paid under protest was held to keep the refund claims outside the ordinary six-month limitation under Section 11B(1), so the claims were maintainable. The protest remained effective because it had not been finally disposed of by a speaking order under Rule 233B, and the absence of such disposal did not make the protest ineffective. The rejection of refund claims on that basis was unsustainable, and the lower appellate authority's allowance of the refunds was sustained with directions for expeditious settlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B(1) when duty had been paid under protest; (ii) Whether the absence of a separately disposed protest under Rule 233B rendered the protest ineffective.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B(1) when duty had been paid under protest.

Analysis: The refund claims arose from duty paid on repair work after the Tribunal had already held that such repair did not amount to manufacture. The payment had been made under protest throughout, supported by a separate protest letter and repeated endorsements in classification lists. Once duty is shown to have been paid under protest, the six-month limitation under Section 11B(1) does not defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not barred by limitation and were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a separately disposed protest under Rule 233B rendered the protest ineffective.

Analysis: Rule 233B requires the protest to be dealt with by the proper officer through an appropriate order. The protest here had not been rejected or disposed of by a speaking order. The demand that the assessee should first have appealed against the approved classification list did not arise until the protest was properly decided. The hurried rejection of the refund claims without granting a fair opportunity also offended natural justice.

Conclusion: The protest remained effective, and the rejection of the refund claims on that ground was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed, the lower appellate authority's allowance of the refund claims was sustained, and the refund matters were directed to be settled expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under protest and the protest has not been finally disposed of by a speaking order, the refund claim is not hit by the ordinary limitation under Section 11B(1).

---