Excise duty refund not barred by limitation where payment was treated as under protest and exemption was disputed.

Repeated dispute over excise duty liability and written correspondence with the department supported treatment of the payment as made under protest. Because the Central Excise Officer had also indicated that duty paid would be refundable if the exemption claim was ultimately accepted, and no prescribed refund form existed at the relevant time, the refund claim was held not to be barred by limitation. The Revenue's challenge to the grant of refund therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty was barred by limitation and whether the payment was made under protest so as to justify refund.

Analysis: The respondents had repeatedly disputed their liability to pay duty and had corresponded with the department on the levy. The record showed that the Central Excise Officer had informed them in writing that, if exemption was ultimately accepted, the duty earlier paid would be refundable. At the material time there was no prescribed form for a refund application, and the payment was treated as having been made under protest.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not defeated by limitation, and the Revenue's challenge to the grant of refund failed.

---