Refund limitation under protest: Tribunal held protest-based excise refund was not time-barred under Section 11B.

Refund of duty paid under protest was treated differently from an ordinary refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the one-year limitation and relevant-date mechanism do not apply in the same manner where payment was made under protest, especially when the protest had not been expressly disposed of by the proper authority. It also held that dismissal of proceedings in another matter did not determine this assessee's own protest-based refund claim, since each claim stands on its own proceedings. The refund rejection as time-barred was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for duty paid under protest was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund arose from duty paid on fly ash under protest. The dispute on excisability had been settled by the judicial determination that fly ash was not exigible to central excise duty, but the Tribunal held that the protest entered by the appellant had never been expressly disposed of by the proper authority. The one-year limitation under Section 11B does not govern payments made under protest in the same manner as ordinary refund claims, and the relevant date mechanism must be read with the statutory scheme and the protest procedure. The Tribunal further held that the dismissal of proceedings in another case did not or conclude the appellant's own protest, because each assessee's refund claim stands on its own proceedings. Accordingly, the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the impugned rejection was unsustainable.

---