Payment under protest in excise can be valid without a formal label where liability is clearly disputed.

A letter may constitute a valid protest for excise purposes where it clearly disputes liability and is supported by surrounding coercive departmental communications. The majority treated the appellants' letter dated 15-3-1975 as a protest, noting that the absence of clearance documents marked under protest did not negate the clear intention to contest excisability. On those facts, duty paid thereafter was treated as payment under protest, and the refund claim was not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' letter dated 15-3-1975 constituted a protest so that the duty paid thereafter could be treated as payment under protest and the refund claim would not be barred by limitation.

Analysis: The majority found that the letter of 15-3-1975, read with the Superintendent's coercive communication, showed that the appellants had consistently disputed excisability and had been compelled to comply with departmental directions. The absence of supporting clearance documents marked under protest did not, on the facts of the case, displace the effect of the letter and surrounding circumstances. The majority also drew support from the principle that protest need not be couched in any particular form if the intention to contest liability is clear.

Conclusion: The letter was treated as a protest and the bar of limitation was held not to defeat the refund claim.

---