Duty paid under protest was held valid for refund limitation where no prescribed protest procedure then existed.

A refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as within limitation because the duty had been paid under protest during a period when Rule 232-B had not yet prescribed any formal protest procedure. The protest recorded on the gate passes was accepted as sufficient evidence of protest, and the claim could not be rejected merely because no separate written protest had been filed with the department. On that basis, the protest was held valid for Rule 11 purposes and the refund was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the payment of duty under protest kept the claim within time.

Analysis: The relevant period and the refund claim both preceded the introduction of Rule 232-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which a prescribed procedure for payment of duty under protest was later introduced. For the period in dispute, there was no such prescribed procedure. The record showed that the protest was noted on the gate passes, and in the absence of Rule 232-B during the relevant time, the protest could not be rejected merely because a separate written protest had not been lodged with the department. On that basis, the protest was treated as valid for the purpose of Rule 11.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the protest was valid, in favour of the assessee.

---