Refund limitation and valid protest under excise law: correspondence cannot replace a prescribed protest or revive time-barred claims.

A letter of protest under Rule 233B had to be lodged in the prescribed manner, and a mere correspondence or note could not itself operate as a refund claim. Earlier letters and a revised classification list did not constitute a valid protest covering past clearances, and a later letter could not revive refund claims already barred before the applications were filed. The special rule applicable to provisional assessment did not apply because the assessee was not under provisional assessment. Refund claims therefore remained subject to Section 11B and had to be filed within the prescribed limitation period, with the result that the claims were time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the letters sent by the assessee could be treated as a valid protest or refund claim so as to save the refund from limitation, and whether the refund claims for past clearances were barred by the time limit under the excise law.

Analysis: The assessee had paid duty on clearances after being directed to follow Tariff Item 68, and later sought refund on the footing that its correspondence and revised classification list amounted to protest and a constructive refund claim. The Tribunal held that, after Rule 233B came into force, a protest had to be lodged in the manner contemplated by that rule, and the note to the rule made it clear that a letter of protest was not itself a refund claim. The earlier correspondence did not amount to a valid protest covering earlier clearances, and the later letter of 18-5-1985 could not revive refund claims already barred for payments made before the refund applications were filed. The assessee had also not been under provisional assessment, so the special principle applied in cases of provisional assessment was inapplicable. Consequently, the refund claims had to satisfy Section 11B and were required to be filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion: The refund claims were time-barred and the assessee was not entitled to refund on the basis of protest or constructive refund claim.

---