Refund claim on duty paid under protest could not be rejected merely for missing endorsement where classification was consistently challenged.

Duty paid during 1978 could not be subjected to Rule 233B, introduced later, and the assessee's contemporaneous objections to classification, request for revised classification, and provisional assessment were sufficient to show payment under protest in substance. The absence of the endorsement "Under Protest" on gate passes therefore did not justify rejection of the refund claim. Payment under protest mattered only for limitation, and the claim was not time-barred on the facts recorded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground that the gate passes did not bear the endorsement "Under Protest", and whether Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules could be applied to duty paid during 1978.

Analysis: The dispute concerned refund of duty paid during April to September 1978 after the assessee had consistently challenged classification of its goods under Tariff Item 15A and claimed classification under Tariff Item 68. The later introduction of Rule 233B in May 1981 could not govern clearances made in 1978. The correspondence on record showed that the assessee had objected to the classification, sought revised classification, and proceeded on provisional assessment, which was sufficient to show that duty was paid under protest in substance. Payment under protest was relevant only to limitation, and the claim was not rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on the basis of absence of the endorsement "Under Protest" was unsustainable, and the refund claim could not be denied on that ground.

---