Valid protest and refund limitation under excise law require statutory compliance, not a bare endorsement under protest.

Refund of excise duty or credit reversal is not saved from limitation by a mere endorsement of "under protest" unless the protest is recorded in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B. The document states that the assessee debited the amount in RG 23A Part II, but did not comply with the statutory procedure for a valid protest, and the refund claim was filed about four years later. Finalisation of the RT-12 return did not override the requirement to seek refund in accordance with Section 11B and Rule 173-I(4), so the claim was treated as time-barred and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of a valid protest in accordance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the claim could be sustained after finalisation of the RT-12 return under the refund mechanism prescribed by Rule 173-I(4) and Section 11B.

Analysis: The appellants debited the amount in the RG 23A Part II account and merely endorsed it as under protest, but did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 233B for recording a valid protest. The refund claim was filed after about four years, and the finalisation of the RT-12 return did not dispense with the statutory requirement of filing the refund claim in accordance with Section 11B. The earlier decisions relied upon by the appellants were found inapplicable on the facts, as they concerned different situations relating to protest and assessment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was correctly held to be time-barred and unsustainable; the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the rejection of the refund claim was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim of duty or credit reversal is not maintainable unless protest, where required, is recorded in the manner prescribed by the governing rules, and mere endorsement without statutory compliance does not save limitation under the refund provisions.

---