JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:

1. The challenge in this batch of appeals is to the final judgments and orders delivered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. No.13940/2009 and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal Nos.163/2007 and 124 of 2008. The core issue which confronts us in all these appeals relates to the question of commencement of the period for the purpose of payment of interest, on delayed refunds, in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”). In short, the question is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made?

2. As aforesaid, in all these appeals the question in issue being the same, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, a few facts from C.A. No. 6823 of 2010 may be noted. These are as follows:

The appellant filed certain claims for rebate of duty, amounting to Rs.4,84,52,227/- between April and May 2003. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, vide order dated 23rd June 2004, rejected the claim. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), who by his order dated 30th September 2004 allowed the appeal and sanctioned the rebate claim. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, but without any success. Ultimately rebate was sanctioned on 11th January, 2005. On 21st April 2005, appellant filed a claim for interest under Section 11BB of the Act on account of delay in payment of rebate.

3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5th July 2005, proposing to reject their claim for interest on the ground that rebate had been sanctioned to them within three months of the receipt of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30th September, 2004. Upon consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant, relying on Explanation to Section 11BB of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim.

4. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and directed the Assistant Commissioner to compute and pay the interest to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Assistant Commissioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). However, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with a rebate claim. Feeling aggrieved, the Assistant Commissioner filed a revision application before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India who vide his order dated 30th July 2009 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the appellant was not entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Act.

5. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. Relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shreeji Colour Chem Industries1 (2008) 9 SCC 515, by the impugned order, the High Court has affirmed the decision of the revisional authority and held that the appellant is not entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Act. Hence, in the lead case the assessee is in appeal before us. However, in the connected appeals, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay having affirmed the decisions of the Tribunal, upholding the claim of the assessee for interest under Section 11BB of the Act, the revenue is the appellant.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the language of Section 11BB of the Act is clear and admits of no ambiguity, in as much as the revenue becomes liable to pay interest