Appellant wins interest dispute on excess customs duty paid, granted 6% per annum.

The appellant, involved in a dispute over the assessable value of imported goods and excess customs duty paid, was initially denied interest on the excess amount by authorities. Despite a refund being granted, interest was withheld citing Customs Act provisions. The Member (Judicial) found an error in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation and ruled in favor of the appellant, citing relevant Customs Act sections and a Supreme Court precedent. The appellant was granted interest at a rate of 6% per annum on the excess amount deposited under protest until the refund was issued, to be disbursed within 45 days of the order.

---

---

Issues:
- Entitlement to interest on excess customs duty deposited under protest

Analysis:
The dispute in this appeal revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to interest on the excess amount of customs duty deposited under protest until the refund of the excess amount. The appellant imported old and used printing machines and declared an assessable value of &8377; 15,36,600. However, the Revenue disagreed with this value and determined the assessable value to be &8377; 50,75,000. The appellant paid the duty on the enhanced value to release the goods. The appellant later appealed this decision, and the CESTAT, New Delhi set aside the order-in-original, holding it to be without merit. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid, which was initially rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal later ruled that there was no unjust enrichment in this case and allowed the appeal of the appellant.

Following this, the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid, which was initially rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal later ruled that there was no unjust enrichment in this case and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Despite the refund being granted, the interest on the excess amount was denied by the authorities, citing the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows interest on refunds not granted within three months from the date of application. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant was entitled to interest three months after the date of filing the refund claim.

Upon considering the contentions, the Member (Judicial) found an error in the section considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and referred to Section 129 EE of the Customs Act, along with the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. The Member held that the amount deposited provisionally under protest should attract interest from the date of deposit until the grant of refund. Consequently, the Member allowed the appeal and held that the appellant is entitled to interest at the prescribed rate of 6% per annum, directing the disbursement of such interest within 45 days from the date of the order.

---