Refund not allowed where duty liability was undisputed and only the RT-12 recovery method was challenged.

Duty paid under a classification review order could not be refunded merely because the Department recovered it by short endorsement on RT-12 returns. The decisive point was that the challenge went only to the mode of recovery, not to the underlying duty liability. The principle against raising a demand by short endorsement on RT-12 did not assist where the duty itself was not in dispute. Refund was therefore unavailable on the ground of procedural irregularity alone, although any consequential relief dependent on a pending Supreme Court matter was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid pursuant to a classification review order could be refunded merely because the Department recovered it by short endorsement on RT-12 returns.

Analysis: The amount recovered was the duty found payable under the classification review order. The challenge was only to the method of recovery, not to the underlying liability. The rule that a demand should not be raised by short endorsement on RT-12 returns did not assist the appellants, because that principle applies where the demand itself is under contest. A refund could not be granted solely on the ground that the mode of recovery was irregular. The possibility of consequential relief arising from the outcome of the pending Supreme Court matter was left open, but it was not the issue decided.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected and the appeal failed.

---