Payment under protest does not extend refund limitation where duty follows an adjudication order and appeal was the proper remedy.

Duty paid pursuant to an adjudication order could not be treated as payment under protest merely because a protest letter was issued. Rule 233B contemplates payment under protest where an assessee has a remedy of appeal or revision against the order requiring deposit; where liability arises from an adjudication order, the proper course is to challenge that order in appeal. The protest letter therefore did not save the refund claim from the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the claim was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid pursuant to an adjudication order could be treated as duty paid under protest so as to avoid the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contemplates payment under protest in cases where the assessee has a remedy of appeal or revision against the order or decision necessitating the deposit. Where the duty liability arises from an adjudication order, the proper course is to challenge that order in appeal rather than merely pay the duty under protest. On that basis, the protest letter did not exempt the refund claim from the limitation under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The claim for refund was hit by limitation and the plea that payment was made under protest was rejected.

---