Pre-deposit refund under excise law escapes refund limitation when made only to secure hearing of the appeal.

A pre-deposit made solely to satisfy the statutory condition for hearing an appeal on merits was treated as a compulsory payment, not a voluntary duty payment. Because the appeal itself operated as a protest against the demand, the assessee was not required to file a separate protest letter before making the deposit. On that basis, the refund of the amount deposited under Section 35F was held not to be subject to the limitation period under Section 11B, and the refundable amount was available to the assessee after success in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies to refund of duty deposited pursuant to the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for maintaining an appeal.

Analysis: The deposit made to satisfy the statutory condition for hearing the appeal on merits was not treated as a voluntary payment. Filing the appeal itself was treated as a protest against the demand, and the amount deposited under Section 35F was regarded as paid only to fulfil a statutory obligation. In such circumstances, once the assessee succeeded in appeal, the refundable amount could not be subjected to the limitation prescribed for refund claims under Section 11B, nor was a separate letter of protest required before payment.

Conclusion: The time limit under Section 11B did not apply to the refund of the pre-deposit made under Section 35F, and the refund was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit made solely to comply with the statutory condition for hearing an appeal on merits is not a voluntary payment and is refundable without attracting the limitation applicable to refund claims under Section 11B.

---