Refund claim for duty paid under stay order was treated as under protest, so limitation under section 11B did not bar relief.

Duty deposited pursuant to a tribunal stay order while an appeal was pending was treated as payment under protest, following the Supreme Court view that duty paid under court orders during adjudication need not be separately protested under Rule 233B. On that basis, the refund claim was not defeated by the limitation period under section 11B, and rejection of the claim as time-barred was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for duty deposited pursuant to a stay order could be rejected as time-barred under section 11B.

Analysis: The amount was deposited by the appellants under a tribunal stay order while the appeal was pending. Such payment was treated as payment under protest in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling that duty paid under court orders pending adjudication need not be separately protested under Rule 233B. On that basis, the refund claim was not liable to be defeated by the limitation prescribed under section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the rejection order was unsustainable.

---