Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.........."

8. The section stipulates that any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment may make an application for refund of such duty to the authority before the expiry of one year in case of import made by individual for personal use or by Government, etc. and in any other case before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. The second proviso stipulates that the limitation of one year or six months as the case may be shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. Barring payment of duty paid under protest, for all other claims for refund of duty, the limitation period of one year or six months as the case may be will apply.

84. ....
85. The rule no doubt requires the assessee to mention the "grounds for payment of the duty under protest" but it does not empower the proper officer, to whom the letter of protest is given, to sit in judgment over the grounds. The assessee need not particularise the grounds of protest. It is open to him to say that according to him, the duty is not exigible according to law. All that the proper officer is empowered to do is to acknowledge the letter of protest when delivered to him and that acknowledgement shall be the proof that the duty has been paid under protest. A reading of the rule shows that the procedure prescribed therein is evolved only with a view to keep a record of the payment of duty under protest. It is meant to obviate any dispute whether the payment is made under protest or not. Any person paying the duty under protest has to follow the procedure prescribed by the Rule and once he does so, it shall be taken that he has paid the duty under protest. The period of limitation of six months will then have no application to him.
86. We may clarify at this stage that when the duty is paid under the orders of Court (whether by way of an order granting stay, suspension, injunction or otherwise) pending an appeal/reference/writ petition, it will certainly be a payment under protest; in such a case, it is obvious, it would not be necessary to lodge the protest as provided by Rule 233B....."

Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that where a person proposes to contest his liability by way of appeal, revision or in the higher Courts, he would naturally pay the duty under protest and it is difficult to imagine that a manufacturer would pay the duty without protest even when he contests the levy of duty, its rate, classification and the assessee need not particularise the grounds of protest and it is open to him to say that the duty is not exigible according to law and the acknowledgement of the letter of protest shall be the proof to show that duty had been paid under protest and in that case, the period of limitation of six months will have no application to him. The Apex Court has further held that where the duty is paid under the orders of Court pending an appeal/reference/writ petition, it will certainly be a payment under protest and in such a case it would not be necessary to lodge the protest.

10. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has not made the payment of duty under protest and in that case, the period of limitation of six months will apply to the petitioner and the claim not being made within a period of six months from the date of payment has been rightly rejected by the respondent.

11. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.