Valid protest is essential to save refund limitation where the declaration is false and procedural compliance is missing.

A refund claim cannot avoid limitation merely by asserting payment under protest unless the protest is validly made under the prescribed procedure and supported by a truthful declaration. Here, the protest was treated as invalid because the declaration that an exemption appeal was pending was false, the appeal had in fact been filed by another party, and compliance with Rule 233-B was not shown. As a result, the later approval of the classification lists did not amount to acceptance of a valid protest, and the refund claim remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was within time on the basis that duty had been paid under protest, and whether the appellants could rely on a purported protest when the declaration on which provisional approval was obtained was incorrect.

Analysis: The appellants' protest was held invalid because the declaration that an appeal for exemption was pending was false, the appeal had in fact been filed by another party, and the procedure for protest prescribed by Rule 233-B was not shown to have been complied with. On those facts, the later approval of the classification lists could not be treated as acceptance of valid payment under protest so as to save limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim remained time-barred. The appeal was against the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot escape limitation on the basis of payment under protest unless the protest is validly made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and rests on a truthful declaration.

---