Valid protest against excise duty payment defeats limitation for refund under Rule 11

Contemporaneous written protest against payment of central excise duty was treated as sufficient to keep a refund claim alive under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that letters of protest lodged at the time of payment constituted valid protest, so the limitation bar did not apply where duty was paid under protest. It relied on prior Tribunal authority and Supreme Court guidance that a letter disputing duty is adequate protest. The Tribunal also noted that review jurisdiction could not be used to raise a new ground not taken in the original notice. The assessee therefore succeeded on the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether letters of protest lodged at the time of payment of central excise duty constituted a valid protest so as to save limitation for refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Rule 11, as it then stood, barred refund claims unless they were made within the prescribed period, but the Tribunal noted that a contemporaneous protest against duty payment keeps the claim alive. It relied on prior Tribunal authority holding that a letter of protest is sufficient protest, and on the Supreme Court's view that a letter disputing duty is adequate protest, with the result that limitation under Rule 11 does not apply where duty was paid under protest. The review jurisdiction could not be used to introduce a new ground not invoked in the original notice.

Conclusion: The protest letters were held to be valid, the limitation bar under Rule 11 was inapplicable, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous written protest against excise duty payment is sufficient to treat the claim as kept alive and to exclude the limitation bar for refund under Rule 11.

---