Valid protest under excise rules preserved refund rights and defeated the limitation bar in a classification dispute.

A written protest against central excise duty can be valid without any prescribed form where the assessee expressly states that payment is under protest while a classification dispute is pending. The appellant's letter dated 5-5-1978, read with protest endorsements in the RT-12 returns and departmental acknowledgment, was treated as sufficient to keep the refund claim outside the limitation bar under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The later introduction of Rule 233B was noted as reflecting the accepted legal position that payment under protest preserves the assessee's rights. On that basis, the limitation objection failed and the refund claim for the relevant period was not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's letter dated 5-5-1978 constituted a valid protest under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to keep the refund claim for the period 5-5-1978 to 19-3-1979 outside the bar of limitation.

Analysis: The refund claim arose in the context of an ongoing classification dispute, and the appellant had expressly stated that duty was being paid under protest while the dispute remained pending. The letter was acknowledged by the Department, the payments were accompanied by protest endorsements in the RT-12 returns, and no particular form of protest was prescribed under the governing rule at the relevant time. The later introduction of Rule 233B reflected the recognition of payment under protest as a means of keeping the assessee's rights alive. On these facts, the protest was sufficient in law and the limitation objection could not stand.

Conclusion: The protest was valid and effective, and the refund claim for the relevant period was not barred by limitation; the finding against the assessee was set aside.

---