Duty under protest must match the refund ground; unrelated protest cannot defeat limitation, though timely payments need verification.

A protest against duty defeats the refund limitation bar only when it is referable to the same levy and the same refund ground later asserted. Here, the correspondence showed protest, at best, over obtaining a licence, while the refund claim rested on a different contention that the goods were not excisable or classifiable under the tariff item; the protest therefore did not save the claim from limitation. The alternative claim for duty paid within the statutory six-month period was not barred on the face of the record and required verification of the payments. The matter was remitted for fresh examination on merits for that limited portion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants' letter dated 30-11-1976 and the surrounding correspondence constituted payment of duty under protest so as to avoid the bar of limitation on refund; (ii) Whether the refund claim was nevertheless admissible to the extent of duty paid within the six months period immediately preceding the refund application.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants' letter dated 30-11-1976 and the surrounding correspondence constituted payment of duty under protest so as to avoid the bar of limitation on refund.

Analysis: A protest can be effective only if it is connected with the payment of duty sought to be refunded and with the basis on which the refund is later claimed. The correspondence relied upon by the appellants showed protest, at best, in relation to obtaining a licence, and the reasons stated therein did not match the later refund ground that the goods were not excisable or classifiable under the tariff item. A protest on one footing cannot support a refund claim founded on a different and unrelated footing. The material therefore did not establish payment of duty under protest for the refund claim in question.

Conclusion: The plea of payment of duty under protest was rejected, and the refund claim could not be saved from limitation on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was nevertheless admissible to the extent of duty paid within the six months period immediately preceding the refund application.

Analysis: The alternative contention that the refund claim covered some duty paid within the statutory limitation period required factual verification of the relevant payments. That portion of the claim was not barred on the face of the record and called for examination on merits by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector to verify the records and decide the claim on merits for the duty paid within the permissible period.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained insofar as it negatived the protest-based challenge to limitation, but the appellants obtained relief in respect of the portion of the refund claim falling within the limitation period, which was sent back for fresh verification and decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest against duty must be referable to the very levy and the very refund ground later asserted; a protest on a different footing does not displace the statutory limitation for refund.

---