Statutory interest on excise refund prevails over equity; interest was confined to the period after the refund remained pending.

Interest on excise refund is governed by statute, and Section 11BB applies only after the refund application remains pending beyond the prescribed period. The earlier rejection of the refund claim did not justify interest from 24.7.1991, because equitable interest cannot be awarded without a proper written demand and a legally established entitlement. The broader claim for interest from that date was rejected, while statutory interest was confined to the later period after the application stayed pending beyond the statutory time limit.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest on refund under the Central Excise law was payable from the date of the first rejection of the refund claim or only in accordance with Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether any equitable interest could be granted in the absence of a written demand.

Analysis: Interest on refund is governed by the statute and cannot be awarded merely on equitable considerations unless the requirements for such relief are established. Section 11BB provides for interest only after the stipulated period from the date of the refund application. The earlier rejection of the refund claim did not justify granting interest from 24.7.1991, and no written demand was made to sustain a claim for equitable interest. The Court also noted that the respondent became entitled to statutory interest only for the period after the refund application remained pending beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion: The broader claim for interest from 24.7.1991 was rejected. Interest was held payable only for the period from 12.4.2004 to 26.8.2004 under Section 11BB, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on excise refund is payable only as provided by the statute, and equitable interest cannot be granted without a proper written demand and legally established entitlement.

---