Valid protest under excise law can preserve refund limitation where contemporaneous objections and endorsements show continuing dispute.

Contemporaneous correspondence, repeated objections to classification, and endorsements on gate passes can constitute a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where they clearly show a continuing challenge to duty liability. On those facts, payment is treated as made under protest, so the refund claim is not barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The authorities should not ignore such protest merely because it is not expressed in a rigid formal form; limitation must be assessed in light of the substance of the objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' correspondence and endorsements amounted to a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the refund claim was therefore within limitation under Section 27 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellants repeatedly disputed the departmental view on classification, made contemporaneous representations, stated that duty would be paid under protest pending decision, and endorsed the gate passes accordingly. The protest was not a mere formal objection but a clear and continuing challenge to liability and classification. On those facts, the authorities were not justified in treating the payment as unqualified or in ignoring the protest for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The payment was held to have been made under protest, and the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The appeal succeeded to that extent and the matter was sent back for consideration of the refund claim on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous and continuing objection to levy, reflected in letters and endorsements on clearances, can constitute a valid protest for refund limitation purposes, even if the protest is not in a rigid formalistic manner.

---