@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.J. Desai, J@mdashBy way of the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1954 the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs has challenged order dated 7th January 2015 passed in Appeal No. E/114/2007-DB by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad by which the Tribunal has held that the respondent would be entitled for the interest on the refund immediately on the expiry of three months period of submission of his application of refund towards the duty paid by him. The appellant intend that the following question shall be framed as a substantial question of law in this appeal:
"Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in allowing interest on delayed sanctioned of refund from the date of refund application, under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944."
2. We have heard Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-revenue. It is the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal and erred in law on holding that the respondent shall be entitled for the interest on refund immediately from the expiry of three months from the date of his application for refund. As per her submission, the person would be entitled for interest only from the date of possession and not from the completion of 3 months of filing an application for refund. She has tried to submit that under Section 11BB the interest can only be paid from the completion of adjudication with regard to refund application.
3. We have heard Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate for the appellant and perused the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, which has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court. We has also perused a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 292 by which it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the law to pay the interest commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date o receipt of application and not from the decision. In our view, the issue has been covered by the above decision and therefore we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the issue in favour of the respondents who had applied for the refund of excise duty. Hence, the appeal is meritless and is summarily dismissed.
