Duty paid under protest avoids limitation, but refunded duty passed on to customers stays in assessable value.

Duty paid under protest pending approval of a classification list is treated as outside the limitation bar in section 11-B, and the availability of provisional assessment does not defeat that protection where approval is delayed. The note also states that refund of duty earlier recovered from customers remains includible in assessable value under section 4(4)(d)(ii) for valuation purposes. The procedural lapse in not adopting provisional assessment does not, by itself, remove the benefit of the protest proviso, but a later refund of duty already passed on does not reduce assessable value.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty paid under protest pending approval of the classification list could be treated as a refund claim barred by limitation under section 11-B; and whether provisional assessment was the proper procedure. (ii) Whether refund of duty received by the assessee was includible in the assessable value.

Issue (i): Whether duty paid under protest pending approval of the classification list could be treated as a refund claim barred by limitation under section 11-B; and whether provisional assessment was the proper procedure.

Analysis: The appellants were following the self-removal procedure and had filed classification lists claiming exemption. Pending approval, they continued to pay duty under protest after communicating their objection to the department. The statutory scheme contemplated provisional assessment under Rule 173-B(2A) where approval of the classification list was delayed, and duty under protest under Rule 173-B(3) in disputes as to the rate of duty. The proviso to section 11-B excluded the time limit where duty had been paid under protest. The procedural lapse, if any, in not resorting to provisional assessment did not take the case out of the benefit of the protest proviso.

Conclusion: The refund claims could not be rejected as time-barred, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of duty received by the assessee was includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The issue was governed by the scope of section 4(4)(d)(ii). Where the duty element had already been recovered from customers, a later refund of that duty could not be excluded from the assessable value for purposes of redetermination. The earlier decision in the assessee's own case was followed, and the Collector (Appeals) was held correct on this aspect.

Conclusion: The refund amount was includible in the assessable value, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only on the limitation issue relating to refund claims paid under protest, but failed on the inclusion of refund amount in assessable value; the matter required consequential re-determination only to the extent of the relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under protest, the refund claim is outside the statutory limitation period, but amounts already recovered from customers and later refunded remain part of the assessable value for valuation purposes.

---