CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Customs Appeal No. 40234 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.I.No. 326/2016 dated 29.09.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), No. 60, Custom House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001)

M/s. RBF Rig Corporation LLC ...Appellant Transocean House, Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powal, Mumbai – 400 076.

Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai VII Commissionerate, New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. Patel J.C., Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 40286 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The present appeal has been filed by M/s. RBF Rig Corporation LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against Order-in-Appeal dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, rejecting the Appellant’s claim for interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 on delayed refund of customs duty. The Appellant, engaged in petroleum drilling operations, imported 28 consignments of equipment and spares during July 2002 to November 2002 for use in petroleum operations under a contract with ONGC, availing Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 214), subject to production of Essentiality Certificates (ECs) from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH). As the ECs were not initially issued, the goods were cleared on payment of duty under protest and the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which by order dated 11.03.2003 directed Customs authorities to consider the refund claims after issuance of the ECs. Upon issuance of ECs during January–March 2003, the Appellant filed refund applications, which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner in 2005–06 on the ground that assessments were not challenged, and such rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.05.2006.

1.2 On further appeal, this Tribunal by order dated 23.06.2014, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RBF Rig Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs – 2011 (264) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.), set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Pursuant thereto, the adjudicating authority re-assessed 15 Bills of Entry and sanctioned refund thereof by Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2015, but denied interest for the period from 2003, giving rise to the present appeal. In respect of the remaining 13 Bills of Entry, refund claims were again rejected as time-barred, which rejection was ultimately set aside by this Tribunal in RBF Rig Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs – 2018 (359) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.). Consequent refunds were granted and interest from 2003 onwards was directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 20.03.2018, which has been accepted and implemented by the Department. Thus, while interest on delayed refund has been granted by the Department itself in respect of 13 Bills of Entry arising from the same imports and refund applications, interest has been denied in respect of the remaining 15 Bills of Entry, leading to the present appeal.

2. The Ld. Advocate Mr. J.C. Patel, , appeared on behalf of the Appellant and advanced detailed submissions in support of the Appeal and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Anoop Singh appeared for the Revenue and defended the Impugned Order.

3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant made the following submissions which are summarized as below: -

3.1 The refund applications were filed during January–March 2003, whereas the refund was sanctioned only on 26.11.2015, after a delay of more than 12 years.

3.2 It was contended that Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates payment of interest if refund is not granted wi