CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86244 OF 2016 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: MUM-CUSTM-SMP-80/2015-16 dated 25^th June 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – I.]

Commissioner of Customs (Import)

New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 … Appellant versus Borsara Machines Hirala Colony, AK Road, Surat - 395008 …Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87655 OF 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: MUM-CUSTM-SMP-44/2017-18 dated 29^th June 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – I.]

Commissioner of Customs (Import)

New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 … Appellant versus Borsara Machines Hirala Colony, AK Road, Surat - 395008 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri Ram Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri Stebin Mathew and Ms Drishya Pandey, Advocates for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85852-85853/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 02/12/2024 DATE OF DECISION: 02/06/2025 PER: C J MATHEW On common ground in these two appeals of Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Customs House, Mumbai is that genesis of duty liability having been fastened upon enhancement of value prompted by alleged relationship of seller and buyer notwithstanding, dichotomy in proceedings, leading to separate appeals before us, is attributable to separate disposal by first appellate authority of rival challenges by both sides to order¹ of original authority granting interest of ₹ 5,99,426 for delayed payment of refund. The combined effect in appeal, against order, [order-in-appeal no. MUM-CUSTM-SMP-80/2015-16 dated 25th June 2015] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai allowing the claim of the respondent herein, M/s Borsara Machines, to be entitled to interest of ₹ 1,24,88,457 in full, on grounds of computational error is the other, against order, [order-in-appeal no. MUM-CUSTM-SMP-44/2017-18 dated 29th June 2017] of the appeal of Commissioner of Customs (Import) declining interference in sanction of ₹ 5,99,426 as interest, on the ground of refunded revenue deposit in provisional assessment not contemplated for allowing interest under section 27A of Customs Act, 1962.

2. It is also common ground of fact that it was in consequence of

decision⁴ of the Tribunal, setting aside the tentative loading of value by ‘special valuation branch (SVB)’ in imports of 107 consignments of ‘draw twisting machines’ in 1989-92 from M/s Lem Lesseni Mario, Spain, that M/s Borsara Machines was entitled to refund ₹ 74,72348 for which the appropriate authority had been approached and, apparently, to little avail owing to which miscellaneous application was filed before the Tribunal under rule 41 of Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for implementation. In order5 thereupon, the Tribunal noted that the refund had, in the meanwhile, been sanctioned for release on 9, [final order no. A/1330/13/CSTB/C-I dated 20th February 2013] December 2014 and, taking note of the plea of the appellant therein for interest too, it was directed that ‘2. When the matter came up today, the learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue as also the counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been given a cheque for Rs 74,72,348/- towards the refund. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that, in terms of the provisions of law and Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX dated 01/10/2002, interest is also liable to be paid if the refund is not granted within a period of three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. In the present case, the refund became due in February, 2013 in pursuance to the Tribunal’s order and therefore, interest should have been paid on the delayed refund in terms of the above Circular which has not been complied with by the Revenue.

3. In these circumstances, we direct the Revenue to pay interest to the appella