Limitation on refund claims required verification of protest endorsement and prior order before fresh adjudication.

Refund claims were required to be re-examined because limitation depended on whether the bills of entry were endorsed "under protest" and on the effect of an earlier refund-related order that had not been fully considered. The record was insufficient for a final appellate determination on these factual and legal questions, so verification of the original bills of entry and the earlier order was necessary. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination of limitation and the protest endorsement issue after hearing both sides and applying the governing law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation and whether the matter required remand for verification of the 'under protest' endorsement and the effect of the unchallenged refund-related order.

Analysis: The dispute turned on two factual and legal questions: whether the relevant bills of entry were in fact endorsed 'under protest', and whether the refund arose from an order whose effect on limitation had not been examined. The material on record was insufficient for a final determination of these questions at the appellate stage, and verification of the original bills of entry and the earlier order was necessary. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with both sides to be heard and the governing law applied after factual examination.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the limitation issue and the protest endorsement issue.

---