##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV

Customs Appeal No. 51596 of 2025

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeall No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/Prev/745/2024-25 dated

30.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi]

M/s. Savi Vision Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant

B-56, Flatted Factory Compled,

Okhla-III, New Delhi - 110020

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),

New Delhi …Respondent

New Customs House,

Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037

APPEARANCE:

Shri Parth Mullick, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Anand Narayan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 12.01.2026

DATE OF DECISION: 29.01.2026

FINAL ORDER NO. 50177/2026

DR. RACHNA GUPTA

Present appeal is filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No.

745/2024-25 dated 30.03.2025 vide which the refund sanction

authority has been directed to allow payment of interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund

thereof. The facts in brief are as follows:

1.1 Department got an intelligence about the appellant importing

goods willfully mis-declaring the maximum retail price. Based on

the investigations in this respect department alleged that the act

has been done with an intent to evade and short paid the customs

2

duty. Accordingly, the short paid duty was proposed to be

recovered vide Show Cause Notice No. 10/02/2005/5785 dated

11.07.2005. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-

Original No. 09/2009 dated 29.04.2009.

1.2 At the time of filing an appeal before this Tribunal against the

said Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2009, the appellant deposited

Rs.35 Lakhs pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

which modified the said order passed by this Tribunal bearing No.

41-42/2010 dated 12.04.2010. This resulted into the payment of

total amount of Rs.41,93,820/- by the appellant during the period

06.04.2005 till 20.09.2010. This Tribunal vide Final Order dated

07.08.2025 had set aside the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2009

and remanded the matter for recomputation of demand in respect

of goods as were sold to NCCF/Kendriya Bhandar. The

department’s appeal against the said final order was dismissed.

1.3 Department did not complied with the directions of the said

remand order for subsequent eight years despite several written

requests/e-mails by the appellant for recomputing the demand.

Ultimately the appellant approach this Tribunal in terms of Rule 41

of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 for issuing directions to the

department seeking compliance of the tribunals final order dated

07.08.2015. Vide order dated 27.06.2023 this Tribunal took on

record the letter dated 23.03.2021 which provided the

recomputation done by the department. It is thereafter that

appellant filed a letter dated 29.08.2023 requesting the refund of

the balance amount of Rs.4193820 after appropriating the duty and

3

penalty amount confirmed by the department vide the said letter

dated 23.03.2021. Thus, the refund claim dated 29.08.2023 was

filed for an amount of Rs.30,73,862/-. The said refund was

sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority vide order dated

02.05.2024 however without interest. In an appeal against the said

order, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has

granted interest from the date of payment till the date of

disbursement but at the rate of 6%. Being aggrieved of the rate of

interest awarded that the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Shri Parth Mullick, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri Anand Narayan, learned Authorized

Representative for the department.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the earlier

decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bird Audio Electronics Vs.

Commissioner of CGST, Final Order No. 50172/2022 dated

28.02.2022 in Appeal No. E/51056/2021. Decision of Parle

Agro Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Noida reported as

2022 (380) ELT 2019 (Tri.-All.) has also been relied upon and

the another decision of Principal