JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and seeks a direction to the second and third respondents to pay to the petitioner Company interest of Rs. 3,07,423/- on delayed refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period from 03.06.2008 to 10.03.2010. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that it is entitled to interest at appropriate rate (that may be fixed by this court) for delay in paying interest of Rs. 3,07,423/- for the period from 24.04.2015 till actual payment and also for paying interest on interest of Rs. 5,40,094/- for the period from 10.03.2010 to 10.11.2010. 2. The petitioner Company is engaged in providing advertising services, which is taxable service under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as amended from time to time and is discharging service tax liability under the said Act. The petitioner company has been registered as an assessee and is a service provider with the Service Tax Department. The petitioner Company paid excess service tax to the tune of Rs. 42,68,686/- for the advertising services provided by them during April 2003 to November 2004. On 24.01.2005, the petitioner Company filed a refund claim of Rs. 42,68,686/- with the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-1, Ahmedabad. A show cause notice dated 21st March, 2005 came to be issued to the petitioner Company proposing to reject the refund claim on the grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax passed an order in-original dated 31.01.2008 rejecting the entire refund claim. The petitioner Company went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad. By an order dated 03.06.2008, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 28,94,776/- was not hit by limitation, and therefore, it was maintainable to that extent, but the amount could not be paid to the petitioner Company because the claim was hit by unjust enrichment and accordingly, he directed that the amount of refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. 28,94,776/- be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue also challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal on the ground that the refund claim was time-barred and that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have allowed the same. By a common order dated 06.11.2009, the Tribunal decided both the appeals whereby, it dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue and partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner Company. The Tribunal, however, held that the claim to the extent of Rs. 13,73,910/- held to be time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not validated because the same was not accepted to be time-barred. Thus, the petitioner Company was held to be entitled to refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- by virtue of the order dated 06.11.2009. 3. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the third respondent made a fresh order being order in-original dated 10.03.2010 sanctioning refund of Rs. 28,94,776/-. However, despite the fact that there was a long delay in paying the refund to the petitioner Company, interest as provided under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to matters under the Finance Act, 1944 also, was not paid by the third respondent. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order dated 10.03.2010 to the extent the interest on delayed refund was not paid. It was the case of the petitioner Company that the refund claim was lodged on 24.01.2005, whereas such claim was sanctioned and paid on 10.03.2010 and therefore, the respondents were liable to pay interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act for the period commencing three months after the date of filing refund claim till payment of the refund amount. The Commissioner (Appeals), by an order dated 03.06.2008, held that the petitioner Company was entitled to interest on refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008. The Commissioner (Appeals), by an order dated 03.06.2008, held that the petitioner Company was entitled to interest on refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008. However, for the period after 03.06.2008, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund claim was sanctioned, but the amount was transferred to the Fund because of unjust enrichment and such order of Commissioner (Appeals) to refund the amount but crediting it to the Fund was an order of refund under section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act and hence, no interest was payable for the period after 02.06.2008 because refund was paid to the petitioner Company within three months of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 06.11.2009. Pursuant to the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order in-original dated 12.11.2010 and, sanctioned and paid interest of Rs. 5,40,094/- being the interest on refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not granted interest for the period from 03.06.2008 till the date of actual payment, the petitioner Company went in appeal before the Tribunal claiming interest of Rs. 3,07,423/- and also further interest on interest because the petitioner Company was unnecessarily dragged to litigate for the claim of refund as well as interest on delayed refund. The Tribunal, by the order dated 06.11.2015, dismissed the appeal observing that no interference was required in this case. The Tribunal held that the refund claim made on 24.01.2005 was sanctioned by the Commissioner (appeals) on 03.06.2015 by ordering transfer of the refund to the Fund and therefore, interest was payable upto the date of sanction of the refund claim i.e. 02.06.2008. Despite the fact that the refund amount was actually paid to the petitioner Company only by adjudication order dated 10.03.2010, the Tribunal held that the revenue could not be held to be liable to grant interest subsequent to 03.06.2008 because whatever was due to Welfare Fund was liable to be transferred to the petitioner Company. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove. 4. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the provisions of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to submit that if any duty ordered to be refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application, then the statute provides for paying to the applicant interest on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of such application till the date of refund of such duty. Thus, the statutory scheme is for payment of interest on refund for the period commencing three months after the date of refund application till actual payment of the refunded amount if the refund was not paid within three months of the date of receipt of such application. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the court has held that only interpretation of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act that can be arrived at is that interest under the said section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act and that the Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. The court held that it is well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provisions; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. The court, accordingly, held that 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 under section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.) wherein, the court held that a close reading of section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear that relevant date for the purpose of determination of the liability to pay interest is not the determination under sub-section (2) of section 11B to refund the amount to the applicant and not to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund but the relevant date is to be determined with reference to date of application laying claim to refund. The non-payment of refund to the applicant claimant within three months from the date of such application or in the case governed by proviso to section 11BB, nonpayment within three months from the date of the commencement of section 11BB brings in the starting point of liability to pay interest, notwithstanding the date on which decision has been rendered by the competent authority as to whether the amount is to be transferred to Welfare Fund or to be paid to the applicant. The court held that if ultimately it is decided that notwithstanding the refund has become due as per final adjudication and amount is to go to the Consumer Welfare Fund, it brings an end to the claim of the applicant whether to refund or interest thereon. However, ultimately if it is found that amount is not to go to the Consumer Welfare Fund but is to be refunded to the applicant, in such event merely because of the time taken in deciding the issue, the applicant cannot be deprived of the interest on delayed payment of refund which ought to have been paid by the authorities in the first instance within three months of the application for claiming refund. 5. 5. On the question of interest on interest, the learned counsel fairly submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, 2013 (296) ELT 433 (SC), the petitioner cannot claim interest on interest as the court has clarified that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest. It was submitted that, however, the petitioner can still be entitled to claim compensation from the respondent as the petitioner has been forced to litigate initially for the purpose of claiming refund and thereafter, for the purpose of interest. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this court in the case of Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (289) ELT 429 (Guj.) wherein, the court held that the Department cannot avoid the liability of accounting for interest on the delayed payment of interest to the extent the same was paid late. Since such claim does not fall within the statutory provisions contained in section 11BB of the Act, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, we would not direct payment of such interest at the statutory rate but would provide for reasonable interest looking to the present trend. The court, in the facts of the said case, awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It was submitted that therefore, though this court may not grant interest on interest, at least some amount is required to be directed to be paid to the petitioner by way of compensatory costs. 6. Opposing the petition, Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the facts of the present case, the refund claim was filed on 24.01.2005 and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to interest for a period after three months from such date. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly granted interest on the amount of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period starting from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008, which is in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly granted interest on the amount of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period starting from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008, which is in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. It was submitted that the revenue authorities have, within a period of three months from 11.12.2009 i.e. the date of the order passed by the Tribunal, granted refund for the period from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008 for the reason that the refund came to be sanctioned on 13.06.2011 and was transferred to the Consumer Welfare Funds. It was submitted that when the amount was already transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the revenue is not liable to pay any other and further amount due for the period subsequent thereto, namely, 03.06.2008 to 10.03.2010. It was submitted that therefore, the amount which was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund was liable to be transferred to the petitioner and nothing more was liable to be paid to the petitioner. It was submitted that the respondent authorities have acted promptly in good faith and there was no deliberate delay, nor was there any lapse on the part of the revenue authorities in connection with the refund claim of the petitioner, under the circumstances, the question of granting any compensatory costs does not arise. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal being just, legal and proper, there is no warrant for interference and that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest for the period from 03.06.2008 to 10.03.2010 and as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensatory costs for late payment on such interest. 8. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is evident that the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. 8. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is evident that the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Section 11BB of Central Excise Act provides that 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 shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five percent, and not exceeding thirty percent, per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. Thus, on a plain reading of the provisions of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, it is evident that the same provides for payment of interest from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application till the date of refund of such duty. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the refund claim was made on 24.01.2005 and the amount was refunded on 12.11.2010. The interest on refund of Rs. 28,94,776/-, however, in terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, was paid for the period from 24.04.2005 to 02.06.2008 and the interest from 03.06.2008 till the date of actual payment i.e. 10.03.2010 was not paid on the ground that such amount had been transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (appeals). 9. Under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, there is an obligation upon the respondents to pay the interest at the prescribed rate immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty, which in the present case is from 24.04.2005 to 10.03.2010. The case of the respondent is that with effect from 03.06.2008, the amount had been transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund and therefore, the liability of the revenue to pay any interest was discharged. The case of the respondent is that with effect from 03.06.2008, the amount had been transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund and therefore, the liability of the revenue to pay any interest was discharged. In the opinion of this court, such contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that the section 11BB of the Central Excise Act provides for payment of interest after a period of three months from the date of application till the date of actual payment. The statute does not provide for curtailment of the period for which the interest has to be paid on account of any super-winning circumstances, like transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out any provision of law which shows that when the amount is transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the period for which the assessee would be entitled to interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act would stand curtailed. It is a settled legal position that insofar as the taxing provision is concerned, the same has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provisions; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. On a plain reading of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, it is evident that the object behind such provision is to provide for payment of interest to a party commencing from a period after three months from the date of application till the date of actual refund. The reason is not far to see, namely, that a party should not be prejudiced on account of any delay in deciding the application or on the ground that the party might have to challenge the order of refund before any other forum. As regards the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, it is evident that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that there was unjust enrichment, was held to be erroneous and has been set aside, under the circumstances, no prejudice ought to be caused to the petitioner on account of any erroneous order passed by the respondents authority, without there being any default on part of the petitioner. On a plain reading of the statute, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date specified in the statute. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding that from the date of transferring the sum to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the petitioner was not entitled to payment of interest on the refund amount. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 28,94,776/- from 24.04.2005 till the actual payment i.e. upto 10.03.2010. 10. Insofar as the prayer for interest on interest is concerned, the learned advocate for the petitioner fairly stated that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra), such relief cannot be granted. He, however, has submitted that the petitioner should be compensated for the prejudice caused to it due to inordinate delay in payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner was required to unnecessarily litigate in two rounds; in the first round, up-till the Tribunal and in the second round, upto this court, for the purpose of availing of the statutory interest payable to it. Under the circumstances, while the court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of compensatory costs, which are quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner Company interest of Rs. 3,07,423/- on delayed refund of Rs. 28,94,776/- for the period from 03.06.2008 to 10.03.2010. The respondents are further directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner Company. Rule is made absolute accordingly.