Refund limitation under Central Excise rules failed where the alleged protest letter did not clearly object to the duty payment.

Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules applied to refund claims filed after its introduction, even where the duty related to an earlier period, because the rule was procedural. The limitation bar was avoided only if the duty had been paid under protest. The letter relied upon as a protest did not clearly contest the levy or payment; it merely referred to packing charges and stated that the Department had no option if duty was held payable. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and the plea of payment under protest failed.

---

---

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 keep the claim outside the limitation bar.

Analysis: Rule 11, being procedural in character, governed the refund application filed after its introduction, even though the duty related to an earlier period. The period of limitation would not apply only if the duty had been paid under protest. The letter relied upon as a protest merely stated that packing charges were not included in the price and that if duty was held leviable the Department had no option; it contained no clear assertion of protest against the levy or the payment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation, and the contention that the payment had been made under protest was rejected.

---