Limitation on excise refund claims applies unless duty was paid under a clear protest; conditional acceptance is not enough.

Refund claims filed after the commencement of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules were governed by that rule even if the duty related to an earlier period, because the provision was procedural. The limitation bar could be avoided only where duty was paid under a clear protest. The letter dated 11-6-1974 was not a valid protest: it did not expressly object to the levy or payment, and merely set out the appellant's position on packing charges while conditionally accepting the Department's view. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and the asserted protest was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the letter dated 11-6-1974 amounted to a protest so as to take the payment outside the bar of limitation.

Analysis: Rule 11, being procedural in character, governed refund applications filed after its coming into force, even if the duty payments related to an earlier period. The bar of limitation would not apply only if the duty had been paid under protest. The letter relied upon by the appellant did not contain any clear or express protest against levy or payment of duty; it merely stated the appellant's position on packing charges and accepted the Department's view conditionally, without asserting protest in substance or form.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and the alleged protest was not established.

---