Valid protest under Rule 233B is essential to avoid limitation for refund claims under Section 11B.

Refund claims are protected from the six-month limitation under Section 11B only where duty was paid under a valid protest in compliance with Rule 233B. That requires a protest letter to the proper officer, acknowledgment of receipt, and the necessary endorsements on relevant excise records. On the facts stated, the earlier protest related to a pre-1985 tariff dispute and did not cover the later classification issue under the 1985 tariff entry. The classification lists and duty payment documents for the disputed period did not carry the required protest endorsement, so the procedural conditions of Rule 233B were not met. As a result, the refund claim was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of a valid protest under Rule 233B, so as to exclude the six-month period under Section 11B.

Analysis: The refund claim could succeed only if duty had been paid under protest in the manner contemplated by Rule 233B. That required a protest letter to the proper officer, acknowledgment of receipt, endorsements on relevant excise records, and compliance with the prescribed procedural steps. On the record, the earlier protest related to the pre-1985 tariff dispute and did not establish a valid protest for the later classification under the 1985 tariff entry. The available classification lists and duty payment documents for the disputed period did not bear the necessary protest endorsement, and the procedural requirements of Rule 233B were not satisfied. In the absence of a valid protest, the protection against limitation under Section 11B was unavailable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and the assessee's challenge failed.

---