TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is registered as a Special Economic Zone Unit. The original refund application was filed by Liquidhud Analytics Pvt Ltd, the subsidiary of the appellant, which was subsequently merged with the appellant pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench. The present appeal is filed by the present appellant. During the period under dispute i.e. January 2017 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017, the appellant was engaged in carrying out authorized operations with regard to provision of IT/ITES services and for undertaking these operations, the appellant procured various services which were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,57,64,564/-, however, no interest on delayed sanction of refund was granted to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.10.2022 for grant of interest from expiry of three months from the date of application till payment of refund in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that refund is sanctioned within three months from the date of application considering the date of filing as 04.05.2022. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23 (5) TMI 1188 (CESTAT Chandigarh) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed sanction of refund or not? We find that this issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal as well as the High Courts and the Supreme Court have settled this issue in the decisions cited above. 7. We also find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the appellant's own case reported in 2019 (366) ELT 208 (Bom.) has allowed the interest on delayed sanction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. The same shall be paid by 15-4-2018. There shall however be no order as to costs." 9. We also find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (supra) has held that interest is payable on the amount refunded to the assessee from the expiry of three months from the date of application till the date of payment of the amount of refund sought under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Relevant findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded in para 14, 15 & 16 are reproduced herein below: "14. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (supra), relied upon by the Delhi High Court. It is evident from a bare reading of the decision that insofar as the reck....