Duty paid under protest bars refund limitation and requires merits-based consideration of the claim.

Duty paid under protest from 24-3-1982 could not be subjected to the normal refund limitation period, because the protest letter expressly disputed classification under T.I. 17(4), claimed exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E., and recorded payment under protest. The absence of a separate appeal against classification did not defeat the refund claim, as the earlier appellate proceedings related to a different period and did not override the protest. The protest also could not be treated as withdrawn without a speaking order, which had not been issued. The refund claim for the period after 24-3-1982 therefore had to be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected as time barred despite the duty having been paid under protest from 24-3-1982.

Analysis: The protest letter dated 23-3-1982, received on 24-3-1982, stated that the goods were claimed to be classifiable under T.I. 17(4) and exempt under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. dated 28-2-1982, and that duty was being paid under protest. In the presence of such protest, the period of limitation for refund could not be applied from 24-3-1982. The objection that no appeal had been filed against classification was not sustainable in view of the protest and the fact that the earlier appellate proceedings related to a different period. The protest was also required to be vacated by a speaking order, which had not been done.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not liable to be rejected as time barred for the period after 24-3-1982, and the matter was required to be considered on merits.

---