3.2. The appellant further submits that duty payments were made “under protest” and hence, the question of time bar does not arise. In this regard, the appellant submits that the dispute with regard to leviability of CVD arose for the first time in September 2004 in respect of an import consignment dealt with by the New Delhi Customs authorities resulting in submission of the protest letter dated September 4, 2004. By the said letter, the appellant made clear its intention to pursue the matter in appellate proceedings in the event of an adverse adjudication. The appellant stated that it would not pass on the incidence of the duty and would claim refund in the event of success. In view of the categorical stand taken by the appellant at the very inception, there can be no doubt that it had not accepted the levy and disputed it. Such dispute was resolved in the appellant’s favour by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after nearly 11 years on March 26, 2015. The maintainability of the refund claim under section 27 in respect of CVD paid at LCS, Jogbani within one year from the judgment dated March 26, 2015 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been rightly accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the submission of the appellant that the protest letter dated September 4, 2004 and the subsequent diligent pursuit of the matter right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is sufficient to show that on and from September, 2004, all the payments of CVD made by them on readymade garments imported across different ports, were under protest. The appellant also made its protest known at other ports, inter alia, by making appropriate endorsements on bills of entry/TR-6 challans. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner should not have been
