Customs refund limitation requires strict compliance with Section 27; a limited protest and later intimation cannot extend time.

Refund claims under the Customs Act must comply with the limitation prescribed by Section 27, and a protest protects only the payment it actually covers. Here, the recorded protest related only to duty on landing charges and did not extend to the classification dispute underlying the refund claim, so the claim remained subject to the statutory time limit. Later departmental intimation did not extend limitation, and the authorities could not enlarge the refund period on equitable or extrastatutory grounds. The claim was therefore correctly treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 notwithstanding the plea of protest and the fact that departmental intimation was received later.

Analysis: The protest on record related only to duty on landing charges and did not extend to the classification issue forming the basis of the refund claim. Under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, refund can be entertained only in accordance with the statutory scheme and within the prescribed time where payment was not made under protest. The departmental authorities and the Tribunal are bound by the statute and cannot enlarge the period of limitation on equitable considerations or because the Department intimated the assessee at a later date. The cited civil-law precedent was found inapplicable, while the Supreme Court decisions on limitation under the customs law were treated as controlling.

Conclusion: The refund claim was correctly treated as time-barred and the contention that later departmental intimation saved limitation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Claims for refund before customs authorities must satisfy the limitation prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the statutory authorities cannot grant refund beyond that period on equitable or extrastatutory grounds.

---