Substantial compliance with protest procedure preserves refund eligibility where duty was debited under protest and challenged in appeal.

A refund claim following allowance of Modvat credit was not barred by limitation under Section 11B where the assessee had debited the duty under protest and had already challenged the levy in appeal. A separate formal protest letter was not treated as indispensable, because the protest had been clearly manifested and pursued through appellate proceedings. The procedural requirements for payment under protest were held to have been substantially complied with, so the refund was not time-barred and rejection on the ground of absence of a formal protest letter was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for want of a valid protest and whether the requirements relating to payment under protest were complied with.

Analysis: The refund arose from the appellate order allowing Modvat credit, and the assessee had made the debit entry in its account under protest. The protest was not limited to a separate formal letter, because the assessee had already challenged the levy by filing an appeal setting out the grounds of protest. In these circumstances, the procedural requirements relating to protest were held to have been substantially complied with. The claim was therefore not liable to be rejected as time barred under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the rejection based on absence of a formal protest letter was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is debited under protest and the assessee has otherwise manifested and pursued the protest through appellate proceedings, substantial compliance with the protest procedure is sufficient to preserve refund eligibility under Section 11B.

---