Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. These are two batches of tax cases arising at the instance of the Revenue and at the instance of the assessee out of a common order of the Tribunal, and the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration : Question of law at the instance of the assessee 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to interest, in respect of its assessments to income-tax for 1958-59 to 1972-73, under the provisions of s. 244 of the IT Act, 1961, from a date following the expiry of three months from the order dt. 31st October, 1975, passed by the Tribunal in the appeals against the assessee for these years ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was entitled to interest, for these assessment years, only from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal against its assessment to income-tax for 1957-58 ? Questions of law at the instance of the Revenue 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to interest under s. 244 of the refunds due from July, 1977 ? 2. Whether, having regard to the directions of the Tribunal contained in its order dt. 31st October, 1975, the Tribunal's view that the refund has fallen due to the assessee on 11th April, 1977 for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73 when the Supreme Court rendered its decision for the asst. yr. 1957-58 in the assessee's case is sustainable in law ? 3. Whether having regard to the provisions of s. 246, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal against the non-grant of interest under s. 244 of the refunds due is maintainable in law ?The assessment years involved are 1958-59 to 1972-73. The assessee is a non-resident company and it entered into an agreement dt. 22nd June, 1955, with an Indian company called, M/s. Carborandum Universal Limited, Madras (hereinafter to the referred to as 'Indian company'). The assessee is a non-resident company and it entered into an agreement dt. 22nd June, 1955, with an Indian company called, M/s. Carborandum Universal Limited, Madras (hereinafter to the referred to as 'Indian company'). Under the terms of the agreement, the assessee was obliged to furnish certain technical know-how to Indian company and consequently, was entitled to receive from the Indian company annual service fees equal to 3 per cent of the net sales of the products manufactured by the Indian company each year. The Indian company, pursuant to the agreement, set up a factory at Madras for the manufacture of certain products and the Indian company during the previous years relevant to the assessment years in question paid to the assessee certain amount by way of annual service charges. The question arose during the assessment years in question whether those annual service charges received by the assessee were taxable under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). It was the contention of the assessee that no part of the technical fees received by the assessee accrued or arose in India and hence, no part of it is assessable under the provisions of the Act. But according to the ITO, the assessee rendered certain services to the Indian company in India and therefore, a portion of the annual technical fees received by the assessee would be taken as having accrued or arisen in India and therefore, taxable in India. Accordingly, he completed the assessment bringing to tax 75 per cent of the annual charges received by the assessee. The assessee preferred appeals before the AAC against the orders of the ITO levying tax on the 75 per cent of the annual charges received by the assessee.Before the appeals preferred against the orders of assessment came up for consideration before the AAC there was an appeal preferred against the assessment made against the assessee-company for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58 on identical grounds under identical circumstances and the appeal for the asst. yr. 1957-58 came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dt. 29th March, 1966, held that the assessee was not liable to be taxed in India as the services rendered were outside India. The Revenue sought a reference against the order of the Tribunal rendered for the asst. yr. yr. 1957-58 came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dt. 29th March, 1966, held that the assessee was not liable to be taxed in India as the services rendered were outside India. The Revenue sought a reference against the order of the Tribunal rendered for the asst. yr. 1957-58, and obtained a reference to this Court and the said tax case reference was pending at the time of hearing of appeals by the AAC for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73. The AAC held that 35 per cent of the technical service charges should be taken as net income that accrued to the assessee in India and that amount alone should be taxed. As against the order of the AAC, there were further appeals both by the Revenue and by the assessee to the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeals preferred both by the assessee as well as by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the reference that was made to this Court for the asst. yr. 1957-58 came up for consideration before this Court, and this Court by a judgment dt. 4th May, 1973, in CIT vs. Carborundum Co. held that the entire service charges received by the assessee would be taxed in India and further held that since the ITO had held that only 75 per cent of the technical fees received by the assessee was taxable in India, this Court directed that the amount only to that extent should be brought to tax for that year. The Tribunal took up the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73. The Tribunal noticed the decision of this Court rendered for the asst. yr. 1957-58 and following the said decision, the Tribunal held that the service charges received by the assessee-company were taxable in India and directed the ITO to compute the income, but subject to allowing certain deductions towards expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the income. It is significant to notice that in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, at the time of hearing of appeals for the assessment years in question, it was stated on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the decision of this Court before the Supreme Court and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted by this Court. Taking note of the submission made on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal made the following directions in its appellate order : "In the event of the Supreme Court rendering its decision before the ITO modifying the assessment for the assessment years under consideration in these appeals in accordance with our directions, he will have due regard to such decision. In the result all the appeals are allowed subject to our directions." The order of the Tribunal was passed both on the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue on 31st October, 1975. Though as a result of the order of the Tribunal, the assessee got the relief of deduction of certain expenditure in the computation of income and correspondingly, would be entitled to certain refund, the amount being not so large, there was not much discussion at the time of hearing of the tax case on the eligibility of interest due on such refund. As already stated, this Court has granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision rendered in the assessee's own case (supra) and the Supreme Court heard the matter and by judgment dt. 11th April, 1977, the apex Court reversed the judgment of this Court and as a consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court, no amount became taxable in India, and the entire amount of tax paid by the assessee became refundable to the assessee for all these years. The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1957-58 is reported as Carborandum Co. vs. CIT. It appears that the assessee requested the ITO to revise the assessment for all the assessment years in question and to grant refund along with interest. Since the Department was not in a position to revise the assessment as according to the Department, the direction given by the Tribunal in its appellate order was ambiguous and vague, the assessee approached the Tribunal with two miscellaneous petitions in M.P. Nos. 6 and 7/(Mds)/1958-59 and the assessee prayed that the Tribunal may pass appropriate orders directing the ITO to revise the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73. The Tribunal disposed of the said two miscellaneous petitions and passed the following orders on 31st July, 1978 : "We have gone through our orders referred to as also the orders in the reference application under reference. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73. The Tribunal disposed of the said two miscellaneous petitions and passed the following orders on 31st July, 1978 : "We have gone through our orders referred to as also the orders in the reference application under reference. We had dismissed the applications for reference giving elaborate reasons in our orders dt. 21st March, 1977. We understand that our orders dismissing the applications for the reference filed by the assessee have also now become final. We do not find any ambiguity in any of the orders passed by us at any stage, and we, therefore, do not consider it necessary to give any clarification. The assessee has further requested that we should pass orders that the assessee would be entitled to interest under the provisions of s. 240 r/w s. 244 of the IT Act, as the assessments were not received (sic-revised) within a period of three months from the date of the Tribunal's order. The question of our passing any order at this stage on this request does not arise". The IAC (Range-I), Madras, passed orders on 31st July, 1978, giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal for all assessment years granting refund of the tax paid by the assessee. The IAC, in the order passed by him, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered for the asst. yr. 1957-58 and held that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, no part of the technical fees received by the assessee could be said to have accrued or arisen in India and the entire technical fees received was not taxable in India. He, therefore, passed an order to the effect that the income as per the orders of the Tribunal is nil and refunded to the assessee the tax paid by it. For the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1964-65, the IAC found that the amounts shown in the return by the assessee could not be said to be not includible as the assessee itself admitted it as income in the returns filed by it for those years. For the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1964-65, the IAC found that the amounts shown in the return by the assessee could not be said to be not includible as the assessee itself admitted it as income in the returns filed by it for those years. Therefore, the IAC granted refund only on the balance of the amount, but has not granted interest under s. 244 of the Act in respect of the refund that was granted for all the assessment years in question.The assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) against the orders of the IAC refusing to grant interest on the refund. The CIT(A) held that after the decision of the Supreme Court holding that no part of the technical fees received by the assessee is taxable under the provisions of the Act, the amounts included in the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1963-64 cannot be taxed, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee has returned those amounts as its income originally. As regards non-allowance of interest under s. 244 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the assessee became entitled to interest only by virtue of the directions given by the Tribunal in its order dt. 31st October, 1975, and the directions given by the Tribunal could not be given effect to within 3 months from the date of passing of the order, because the Supreme Court has not given its decision before the end of 3 months contemplated under s. 244 of the Act. The CIT(A) also held that "refund" that has been determined cannot be said to be strictly 'refund' that is contemplated under s. 240 of the Act and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to interest under s. 244 of the Act. The CIT(A) also rejected the contention raised on behalf of the assessee to the effect that the interest should be granted at least for the subsequent period from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that the refund was not 'refund' contemplated under s. 244 of the Act and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim any interest. The assessee carried the matter by preferring further appeals before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Revenue that an appeal would not lie against the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest. The assessee carried the matter by preferring further appeals before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Revenue that an appeal would not lie against the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest. The assessee as well as the Revenue raised objections on the merits of the case as well. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, did not give rise to any refund at least on the recomputed income after allowing certain expenditure as earlier directed. The Tribunal also held that the refund arose to the assessee in pursuance of the directions given by it in its earlier order dt. 31st October, 1975, and under s. 240 of the Act, the assessee became entitled to the refund and therefore, the assessee was eligible for the grant of interest. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the plea of the assessee that the assessee would be entitled to interest from the date of the order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, and it is only by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court dt. 11th April, 1977 the officer should grant refund from the end of three months from the month in which the order was passed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal therefore, held that the assessee would be entitled to the interest from the said date. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the Department that the assessee became entitled to refund only from the date of the order of the IAC. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the end of three months from the month in which the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered. The Tribunal also held that the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest is an appealable order. It is not necessary to note the reasoning given by the Tribunal, at this stage, for holding that the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest is an appealable order. The order of the Tribunal is the subject-matter of the tax case reference both at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue.Mr. It is not necessary to note the reasoning given by the Tribunal, at this stage, for holding that the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest is an appealable order. The order of the Tribunal is the subject-matter of the tax case reference both at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue.Mr. J. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee is not entitled to interest from the date of earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, and it cannot be said that under the provisions of s. 240 of the Act, the refund arose to the assessee as a result of any order passed by the Tribunal. Learned senior counsel submitted that when the Tribunal passed the order on 31st October, 1975, the judgment of this holding the field and the Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee regarding the taxability of the amount. However, the Tribunal gave certain directions to the ITO to take note of the decision of the Supreme Court that was stated to be pending before the Supreme Court at the time of the passing order by the Tribunal and had the ITO passed an order immediately, the assessee would not have been entitled to interest on that date and, therefore, it is submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the Tribunal to hold as a result of the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975 that the refund became due to the assessee. He also submitted that since the provisions of s. 240 of the Act are not attracted, the assessee is not entitled to claim interest under sub-s. (1) of s. 244 of the Act and a pre-requisite condition for sub-s. (1) of s. 244 of the Act is that the refund should become due in pursuance of the order referred to under s. 240 of the Act. He also referred to the provisions of s. 260 of the Act and submitted that under the provisions of s. 260 of the Act, where a High Court or the Supreme Court decides a matter, the Tribunal should give effect to the orders of either the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be, and dispose of the case in conformity with the said judgment. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered with reference to the asst. yr. 1957-58 and consequently, the order that would have been passed by the Tribunal would only be with reference to the asst. yr. 1957-58 and not for the years subsequent to the asst. yr. 1958-59 onwards and, therefore, he submitted that the assessee is not entitled to claim interest from the date of the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975. Mr. J. Jayaraman, submitted that since the earlier order of the Tribunal is not an order under s. 240 of the Act, as far as the question of granting refund is concerned, the assessee is also not entitled to claim interest from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel also submitted that the order refusing to grant interest is not an appealable order.Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, directed the ITO to pass orders in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court and since the Supreme Court has reversed the decision of this Court, the assessee would be entitled to refund and consequential interest from the date of earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to interest only on the expiry of 3 months from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. He also submitted that the order refusing to grant interest is an appeal able order. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. There is not much dispute about the facts in question. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in earlier paragraphs. It is clear when the Tribunal heard the matter and passed orders on 31st October, 1975, for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73, the decision of this Court rendered in the assessee's own case on 4th May, 1973, for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58 was holding the field and applying the said decision, the Tribunal held that the entire amount of technical fees received by the assessee-from the Indian company was taxable. However, the Tribunal also directed that the expenditure incurred in earning such income should be deducted. yr. 1957-58 was holding the field and applying the said decision, the Tribunal held that the entire amount of technical fees received by the assessee-from the Indian company was taxable. However, the Tribunal also directed that the expenditure incurred in earning such income should be deducted. Had the Tribunal stopped with such a direction, the further legal question that arises in the tax case would not have arisen, as the assessee would have taken further legal proceedings against the order of the Tribunal which, the assessee also tried, but failed to get a reference because of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered subsequently. The Tribunal, however, took note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee as regards the appeal pending before the Supreme Court made against the decision of this Court in 1973 (93) ITR 411 (Mad) (supra) and gave a further direction to the ITO to have due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court at the time of giving effect to the order of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court rendered its decision for the asst. yr. 1957-58 on 11th April, 1977. Therefore, prior to the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, had the ITO given effect to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years in question, he would have passed orders in accordance with the would have held that the entire technical fees received by the assessee from the Indian company was taxable, of course subject to the granting deduction of the expenditure in earning the income as directed by the Tribunal. The AO, probably, waited for the decision of the Supreme Court as there was a direction by the Tribunal to have due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court at the time of passing orders. Consequently, the ITO prior to the date of the decision of the Supreme Court would not have granted any refund had he passed the consequential order. The right to refund, in our opinion, so far as the assessee is concerned arose only by the decision of the Supreme Court though rendered for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58. In other words, as a consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court, the balance of the amount became refundable to the assessee and prior to the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, no right to refund accrued to the assessee. yr. 1957-58. In other words, as a consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court, the balance of the amount became refundable to the assessee and prior to the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, no right to refund accrued to the assessee. In other words, the decision of the Supreme Court rendered for the asst. yr. 1957-58 has not rendered void or affected in anyway the legality or propriety of the order of the Tribunal passed for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73 in any manner. Therefore, the view of the assessee that it is entitled to claim interest even from the date of the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, is not sustainable in law. If this contention of the assessee is accepted, the right to claim interest would arise even from the date of order of assessment passed by the ITO holding that the technical fees received by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. This clearly shows that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58 has not in anyway affected the legal effect of the order of the Tribunal rendered for the subsequent assessment years in question. This is also made clear from the relevant statutory provisions found in the Act. Under s. 260 of the Act, the Tribunal has to pass orders in conformity with the decision of either the High Court or the Supreme Court and since in the instant case, neither the High Court, nor the Supreme Court has rendered any decision for the assessment years in question, it cannot be stated that the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73 has been in anyway affected by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58.In this connection, it is relevant to notice the distinction between the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1957-58 and the subsequent assessment years. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73 has been in anyway affected by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered for the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58.In this connection, it is relevant to notice the distinction between the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1957-58 and the subsequent assessment years. As already seen, the assessment made for 1957-58 had a chequered history and ultimately, it was decided by the Supreme Court that no part of the technical fees was taxable in India and the decision of the Supreme Court, though had the effect from the date of the original assessment order, but, as for the grant of interest is concerned, the interest being a statutory and not a common law right the assessee would be entitled to interest under sub-s. (1) of s. 244 of the Act if the ITO had not granted the refund within the time stipulated under s. 240 of the Act. In other words, the ITO was obliged to grant refund as a result of the order of the Supreme Court, and if he fails to grant the refund within the time specified, the interest begins to run for the assessee. On the other hand, insofar as the asst. yrs. 1958-59 to 1972-73 are concerned, there was no reference to this High Court or any appeal to the Supreme Court. Even the reference application filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal after the decision of the Supreme Court, probably, for the reason that its earlier directions would be sufficient for the ITO to give effect to the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the earlier direction of the Tribunal has to be read in close conjunction with the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, and if so read, it is apparent that as a result of the order of Tribunal passed in appeal, the refund becomes due to the assessee, but it will become due only from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the assessee was placed in a better position in its claim for refund and interest for the later assessment years than it was so for the asst. yr. 1957-58, as we have held that the assessee's right to interest for 1957-58, would be starting on the expiry of three months from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. yr. 1957-58, as we have held that the assessee's right to interest for 1957-58, would be starting on the expiry of three months from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. It cannot be predicated that for the earlier years, for which there was neither reference nor appeal, the assessee would be entitled to interest from the date of earlier order of the Tribunal. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, it will lead to an incongruous position and anomalous situation. That apart, the distinction between the refund and interest should be kept in mind. Though interest is a necessary adjunct of refund, the grant of interest as held by the Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT is statutory in character, we are of the opinion that though the decision of the Supreme Court dates back to the date of original assessment for 1957-58, yet for the subsequent assessment years are concerned the assessee's right to refund would arise on the date of decision of the Supreme Court and prior to that date, it was only a dormant right. Therefore, the right of the assessee to claim interest would arise only after the decision of the Supreme Court and not prior to that. In our view, the view of the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to claim interest from the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975, is justified and there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in the above view it has taken.We are also not able to accept the view of the Revenue urged before the Tribunal that the assessee would be entitled to interest only from the order of the IAC dt. 31st July, 1978. As already seen, the Tribunal has given a clear direction to the ITO to have due regard to the decision or the Supreme Court at the time of passing consequential order pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. When the Supreme Court rendered its decision on 11th April, 1977, the officer had not passed the consequential order and when the assessee has urged that the consequential order should be passed in conformity with the decision of the Tribunal, the officer, it seems, took up a stand that the direction of the Tribunal was ambiguous or vague and, therefore, the assessee brought before the Tribunal two miscellaneous petitions in M.P. Nos. 6 and 7(Mds)/1958-59 and the Tribunal noticed the fact that it had dismissed the application for reference filed by the assessee by order dt. 21st May, 1977, after the decision of the Supreme Court and the order of dismissal of the reference application has become final. The Tribunal also found that there was no ambiguity in any one of the orders passed by the Tribunal at any stage and it felt that there was no necessity for any clarification to be made. If the ITO found any ambiguity or felt that he was not able to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal, after the decision of the Supreme Court, he should have approached the Tribunal for clarification. Probably, he noticed that in the earlier part of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the amount was taxable, whereas in the latter portion of the order the Tribunal gave a direction to have due regard to the order of the Supreme Court and in view of the conflicting directions, the ITO might have entertained a doubt as to how to implement the conflicting order of the Tribunal. It is clear that the Tribunal was clear in its direction when it directed the ITO to have due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court notwithstanding its earlier direction and the effect of the order of the Tribunal is that the entire amount of technical fees received by the assessee is not liable to be taxed. Therefore, after the Supreme Court has held that no part of the amount was taxable, the order of the Tribunal should have been given effect to by the ITO as directed by the Tribunal in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. Though the decision of the Supreme Court was with reference to the earlier asst. yr. 1957-58, the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court would be applicable to the subsequent assessment years as well. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the right to get refund to the assessee would accrue or arise only on passing of the order of the IAC when he gave effect to the order of the Tribunal dt. 31st October, 1975. Hence, it must be noticed that the order passed by the Tribunal in M.P. Nos. 6 and 7 (Mds)/1958-59, dt. 31st October, 1975. Hence, it must be noticed that the order passed by the Tribunal in M.P. Nos. 6 and 7 (Mds)/1958-59, dt. 31st July, 1978, did not add anything nor clarified anything to what was already stated in the order of the Tribunal, and it cannot, therefore, be stated that the subsequent order of the Tribunal was the source for the IAC to pass the consequential order to give effect to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. Having rejected two extreme contentions urged, on behalf of the assessee as well as the Department, we are of the view, the Tribunal was justified in adopting a middle course. According to us, the right to refund to the assessee arose only on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court, though rendered for the earlier assessment year. The question whether the amount received by the assessee towards technical fees is taxable or not was the subject-matter of consideration before the Supreme Court and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court would equally apply for subsequent assessment years as well. Therefore, the assessee became entitled to refund from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court. It is no doubt true that the effect of the Supreme Court dates back to the original order of assessment as the decision of the Supreme Court has full retrospective effect. But, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, in view of the peculiar situation of the case that the decision of this Court was holding the field, and the assessee was not entitled to interest when the Tribunal passed the order on 31st October, 1975, the assessee cannot be said to be entitled to claim interest from that date. Therefore, when the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on 11th April, 1975, the order of the Tribunal holding that the ITO should have due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court has become fully effective and operative for grant of refund to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal, though rendered on 31st October, 1975, and in view of the legal position that the order of the Supreme Court dates back to the date of assessment for the asst. yr. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal, though rendered on 31st October, 1975, and in view of the legal position that the order of the Supreme Court dates back to the date of assessment for the asst. yr. 1957-58, we are of the view that at least from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, the assessee would be entitled to claim interest and had the ITO given effect to the order of the Tribunal on the next day after the date of decision of the Supreme Court, he would have to hold that no part of the technical fees received by the assessee was taxable in India. Therefore, it is clear that the order of the Tribunal, though rendered prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, became operative from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court. In other words, the decision of the Supreme Court infused life to the directions of the Tribunal and activated Tribunal's direction though it was made prior to the date of the decision of the apex Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal can be taken as an order under s. 240 of the Act, because, the order of Tribunal became effective from that date and as a result of the order of the Tribunal and from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, the right to refund accrued to the assessee and this order can be construed as one falling under s. 240 of the Act. The assessee would be entitled to claim interest under sub-s. (1) of s. 244 of the Act on the expiry of 3 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to interest as the refund was not granted within a period of three months from the end of the month in which the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim interest on the refund due to it reckoning from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim interest on the refund due to it reckoning from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in so holding that the assessee is entitled to interest on the expiry of 3 months from the date on which the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered, i.e., 11th April, 1977. We do not find any error of law in the order of the Tribunal in so holding that the assessee is entitled to claim interest.The next question that arises is whether the order passed by the IAC refusing to grant interest is an appeal able order or not. The Tribunal proceeded on a wrong basis as if the cause of action has arisen and the assessee was aggrieved by the refusal to grant refund. It is well-settled that the right to appeal is a statutory remedy and unless statute provides for an appeal remedy, the appeal remedy is not available. However, it is unnecessary to pursue the reasoning given by the Tribunal in so holding that the appeal would lie. Recently in Tax Case No. 448 of 1983, dt. 26th November, 1997, we have held that the appeal would lie against the order of the ITO refusing to grant interest. Following the said judgment, we hold that an appeal would lie against the order of the IAC refusing to grant interest. Though we are not in a position to approve the reasonings given by the Tribunal, following our decision in Tax Case No. 448 of 1983 dt. 26th November, 1997 (supra) we hold that the appeal would lie against the order of the IAC denying interest on the refund due and granted to the assessee. Before parting with, we place on record this Court's appreciation for the fair presentation of the case by Mr. J. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the Revenue as well as Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the assessee. Before parting with, we place on record this Court's appreciation for the fair presentation of the case by Mr. J. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the Revenue as well as Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the assessee. In fine, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the following manner : Questions of law at the instance of the assessee (a) First question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee (b) Second question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee Questions of law at the instance of the Revenue (c) First question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue(d) Second question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue (e) Third question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue Each party will be entitled to costs. Insofar as T.C. Nos. 343 to 357 of 1982 are concerned, the costs is fixed at Rs. 3, 000 as one set and insofar as T.C. Nos. 599 to 613 of 1982 are concerned, the costs is fixed at Rs. 3, 000 as one set.