Refund correspondence may satisfy limitation where it clearly asserts entitlement, despite procedural non-compliance with protest requirements.

Correspondence can constitute a valid refund claim for limitation purposes if it substantively asserts the taxpayer's entitlement, even where it is not in the prescribed form. Procedural non-compliance with protest or refund filing requirements is treated as a lapse that does not by itself defeat the underlying substantive right to refund. Where earlier letters clearly disclose a claim for credit or refund, they may be read as part of the refund claim itself, and the objection that the claim is time-barred cannot be sustained on a purely formal basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the letters dated 15-9-1992 to 29-9-1992 could be treated as a valid refund claim so as to save limitation, and whether non-compliance with the prescribed protest or refund procedure defeated the assessee's substantive right to refund.

Analysis: The advance amounts credited in the PLA were treated as duty payments made for clearance of sugar, but the correspondence exchanged with the department showed that the assessee had repeatedly asserted its claim for credit/refund of the differential duty before the formal refund application was filed. A letter need not be in any prescribed form to constitute a refund claim, and failure to follow the protest procedure under the excise rules is only a procedural lapse. Where the substance of the correspondence clearly discloses a claim for refund, it can be treated as such for limitation purposes. The matter therefore required examination on the footing that the earlier letters were not mere informal communications but were part of the refund claim itself.

Conclusion: The earlier letters were to be treated as refund claims, and the formal objection that the claim was time-barred could not be sustained on the basis adopted by the lower authorities.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the refund claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A correspondence that substantively asserts a refund claim may be treated as a valid refund claim even if not in prescribed form, and procedural non-compliance with protest requirements does not extinguish the underlying right to refund.

---