TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24th Sept., 2004 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Indore by which the Commissioner held that the respondents are eligible for interest on delayed payment of refund w.e.f. 26-8-1995. 2. Heard both the sides. The ld. DR defended the impugned order reiteratin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pulated period of 3 months from the dates of filing of the refund claims. The Section 11BB inserted w.e.f. 26-5-1995 is reproduced below :- Section 11BB - Interest in delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of refund of such duty . 4. In this case, therefore, the interest u/s 11BB become due for the period of delay from 26-8-95. 5. Thus in view of the statutory provisions of Section 11BB the appellant would be eligible for interest for the period of delay in the sanction of refund from 26-8-1995. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed. (Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
