Refund limitation under excise law depends on valid protest, and mistake of law cannot override the statutory bar.

Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 remain subject to the six-month limitation period unless duty was validly paid under protest. The classification lists did not record payment under protest, and the record did not establish a valid protest even before Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 came into force. In that absence, the statutory bar applied. A plea of mistake of law could not override the express limitation, and the refund claim was therefore time-barred and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whether payment of duty could be treated as having been made under protest so as to escape the limitation.

Analysis: The refund application was filed long after the six-month period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The classification lists did not state that duty was being paid under protest, and the record did not show a valid protest even for the period prior to the introduction of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the absence of protest, the claim remained subject to the statutory limitation. The plea based on mistake of law could not displace the express statutory bar, and the Tribunal declined to disregard Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly held to be time-barred and was not maintainable.

---