2012 (9) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and perused the record.   3. Learned Counsel would submit that there is no dispute that the appellant is eligible for the refund claim as the said issue is settled by the decision of the Tribunal vide final order dated 20.08.2010. It is his submission that Revenue is not granting interest to the appellant holding that the appellant is due for interest, three months from 20.08.2010 and not from the date of filing of refund claim. He would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited -- 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC).   4. Learned departmental representative, on the other hand would submit on factual position the decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories case can be distinguished from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant. Hence, the department has taken the requisite action on time at the very initial stage of refund application filed by the appellant by admitting and transferring the refund amount to Customer Welfare Fund. The department did not keep the refund amount pending with itself. The refund amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and lying there during the period of litigation. The finality of the refund amount was achieved and becomes payable to the appellant only after the final adjudication in the matter by CESTAT vide Final Order No. A/1314-1319/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 20.08.2010. Similar view is also expressed in the judgment in the case of Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India [2010 (262) ELT 165 (Guj.)] Variou....