ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is whether the respondent was entitled to interest on the refund of the customs duty that was granted to it, in terms of Section 27A of the Act. The duty in respect of which refund was claimed was paid in May, 1988, the claim for refund was filed on 18-4-1989. The refund fell due as a result of the decision of the Tribunal passed in 1992 holding that the goods imported by the respondent in 1989 were correctly classifiable in Heading 98.01 which carried the lower rate of duty and various other headings in which the department classified the goods. Following the Tribunal’s order, the importer lodged its normal claim for the duty along with claim for interest. The department did not sanction the refund as it challenged the Tribunal’s order in the Supreme Court. By order passed in January, 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the department’s appeal. Subsequently the amount of duty that was paid in excess which was claimed as refund was paid. However, the claim for interest was denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) however accepted the claim that the interest on the refund ought to be paid from August, 1995 till the date of payment. The provisions of Section 27A of the Act came in the statute book in May, 1995 providing that interest should be paid if the claim of refund is pending for more than three months which came on the statute book in May, 1995.
2. We are not able to appreciate any of the grounds in the appeal. The contention that the letter dated 18-4-2001 of the Deputy Commissioner denying the claim for interest is a “simple letter and not a formal order” is unacceptable. The communication of Deputy Commissioner is indeed a formal order denying the claim for interest of the appellant. Deciding that the claim for refund is based upon a non-existing provision of law and hence inadmissible. The order, in our opinion, would rightly be appealed. The contention that the provisions of Section 27 A to apply prospectively is correct. The proviso to Section 27A makes it clear that interest is payable on a refund claim filed prior to enactment of the section, after three months from that date on claims filed prior to enactment of that Section which are not settled within three months from that enactment. Such interest computes after the three months. The contention that the respondent only claimed on 11-2-1998 is factually incorrect. The claim for interest is contained in the application first filed in April, 1989.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.