JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—There is a delay of 64 day in preferring this appeal. The application is not opposed. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, of 64 days in filing the appeal is condoned Misc. Civil No. 14272/2010 is allowed. The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has upheld the order of the appellate authority directing refund of the extra duty deposit by the assessee. 2. The assessee imported various components/parts required for production of their final product from M/s. Hitachi Koki Company, Tokyo, Japan The order in original was passed by the assessing authority holding that the relationship between the importer and foreign company has influenced the invoice price because of the technical know how fees and royalty payable by the importer company and thereby the invoice value was ordered to be loaded by 10.58% to arrive at the assessable value for purpose of customs duty. The quantum of loading which was 10.58% was arrived at base on the royalty amounts payable towards technical know-how and royalty on those components Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order of the assessing authority. 3. Against the said order, second appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal which set aside both the orders and remanded the matter back to the assessing, authority. After remand, the additional value laid was excluded and the provisional transaction value declared was accepted. In the meanwhile, the assessee had paid additional value. Therefore, he wrote letters demanding refund of the said amount. However, the same came to be rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that it was barred by time. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held that, the refund claim that has been preferred by the assessee is not customs duty, but it is extra duty deposit. Thus, this amount cannot be equated with the duty payable by the assessee against the import of the goods by them. At the moot, it can be treated as a precautionary measure to cover up/make good the difference of duty payable by them after completion of final assessment. Thus, this amount cannot be equated with the duty payable by the assessee against the import of the goods by them. At the moot, it can be treated as a precautionary measure to cover up/make good the difference of duty payable by them after completion of final assessment. Therefore, the appellate authority held that the time limit stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case. The provisions under Section 18(1) and 18(2) could have been followed and refund would have been granted automatically after completion of final assessment and cancellation of PD bonds. In coming to that conclusion, he relied on two judgments of the Tribunal at Bangalore and Chennai and thus the order of the assessing authority was set aside and a direction was issued to refund the money. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the said reasoning, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved of the said order, the revenue is before this court in appeal. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that, the refund is not sought for the excise duty paid in excess of what was payable under law. The refund was sought in respect of the additional value insisted upon by the department being the value of technical know-how and royalty. It was added to the excise duty payable. When the assessee authority held that the customs duty paid by the assessee was proper and no additional duty need be paid, they were under an obligation to refund this additional amount which was collected, which had no basis. In such circumstances, Section 27 is not attracted. That is the view taken by the appellate authorities relying or 'he judgment of the Tribunal earlier. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference, No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.