JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 in both these petitions. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present cases, which lies in a very narrow compass, the petitions were taken up for final hearing today. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in Special Civil Application No. 19916 of 2016. 3. The petitioners exported 102 consignments of Pan Masala under claim of rebate/refund of excise duties aggregating to Rs. 3,30,09,140/- paid on such goods. In October- November, 2011 and April 2012, the petitioner company lodged 102 claims for rebate/ refund. By an order-in-original dated 13.01.2012, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (hereinafter referred to as "the adjudicating authority") rejected 87 of the claims. By an order-in-original dated 22.08.2012, the adjudicating authority rejected 15 rebate claims. The petitioners went in appeal against the rejection of rebate claims before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who allowed the rebate claims and set aside the adjudication orders with consequential relief. The Central Excise Department filed revision applications before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revisionary authority remitted the case back for fresh decision, but with a direction that fresh decision on rebate claims should be taken after the outcome of an investigation being conducted by the DGCEI authorities in some other case and after the final decision in one another case pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. Since the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise did not take up the rebate claims for decision, the petitioners approached this court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 14616 of 2015 challenging the order passed by the revisionary authority and seeking a direction to the adjudicating authority to decide the petitioners' rebate claim in accordance with law. By a judgment and order dated 18.02.2016, this court allowed the writ petition and set aside the direction of the revisionary authority to take fresh decision after the outcome of DGCEI investigation as well as the final decision in classification matter by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, and directed the Assistant Commissioner to decide the rebate claims in accordance with law not later than four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. On 12.08.2016, the adjudicating authority passed two orders sanctioning and paying rebate amounts of Rs. 2,81,33,060/- and Rs. 48,76,080/-. Since the said amounts had been passed by the audit department of central excise, the amounts had been credited in the bank account of the petitioner company also. However, the adjudicating authority has not referred to the petitioner's claim and request for interest on delayed refund under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The petitioner company vide letters dated 15.10.2016 and 08.11.2016, requested the adjudicating authority to pay statutory interest under section 11BB of the Act for delay in sanctioning and paying the rebate claims. By the impugned communication dated 17/21.11.2016, the adjudicating authority has communicated to the petitioner company that the rebate had been sanctioned and paid within the time limit specified by this court and has, accordingly, not entertained the petitioner's claim for interest on delayed payment of rebate, which has given rise to the present petitions. 5. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the provisions of section 11B of the Act, which provide for claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty. It was pointed out that under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act, any person claiming refund is required to make an application for refund within the prescribed time limit. Under sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is required to make an order on such application. Under sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is required to make an order on such application. The attention of the court was invited to clause (A) of the Explanation to section 11B of the Act, to point out that "refund" includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India and submitted that rebate of duty is also a refund. Reference was made to section 11BB of the Act, which makes provision for "Interest on delayed refunds" to point out that under sub-section (1) thereof, 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, interest on such duty is required to be paid to the applicant as notified by the Central Government 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. It was submitted that therefore, interest is required to be paid after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application and that the date of the order which may be made by the adjudicating authority, is not relevant for this purpose. Reference was made to the communication dated 17.11.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner (Annexure "E" to the petition), to point out that the claim of interest has been turned down on the ground that the order-in-original was passed within the time limit specified by the High Court in the order dated 18.02.2016. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), to submit that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same stands concluded by the said decision. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), to submit that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra as the same stands concluded by the said decision. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Purnima Advertising Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2016 (42) STR 785 (Guj.), to submit that this court has held that 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 and that the statute does not provide for curtailment of the period for which the interest has to be paid on account of any supervening circumstances. 5.1 The learned advocate also placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of M/s. Indian Farmers' Fertilizers Co-operative Limited v. State of Gujarat and others rendered on 09.10.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 12713 of 2014, wherein the court had held that the respondents could not avoid the liability of paying the refund with statutory interest and even if alternative remedy is available in view of such clear and stark facts, it was not necessary to relegate the petitioner therein to the appellate forum. It was further submitted that no order has been made by the adjudicating authority against which the petitioners can prefer an appeal before the appellate forum and hence, the only remedy left with the petitioners is to prefer the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Opposing the petition, Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents reiterated the reasoning adopted by the Assistant Collector in the communication dated 07.11.2016 and placed reliance upon the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner company is claiming interest from the date of filing of the rebate claim, that is, from 04.04.2012 till the date of payment viz. 12.08.2016, namely for a period of almost four years. It was submitted that the petitioner company is claiming interest from the date of filing of the rebate claim, that is, from 04.04.2012 till the date of payment viz. 12.08.2016, namely for a period of almost four years. It was submitted that the period as mentioned in the calculation sheet at Annexure F to the petition, is the period when the rebate claim was under scrutiny for various reasons by the DGCEI and the DGCEI had booked the case and was investigating the matter. Therefore, the said claim could not be processed as the matter was under investigation. It was submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 11BB of the Act, interest on delayed refund is to be paid by the Central Government when the same is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 11B of the Act. However, the explanation given along with section 11BB of the Act specifically contemplates that where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Act, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court, shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of that section. It was submitted that since the proceedings were pending investigation, the rebate claims were not processed and that on the basis of judgment and order of this court, the order sanctioning the rebate claims came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the same came to be paid within the prescribed limit of four months as directed by this court and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any interest as contemplated under section 11BB of the Act. 7. The sole question that arises for consideration in the present case is as regards the date from which the petitioners would be entitled to interest on delayed payment of rebate. 7. The sole question that arises for consideration in the present case is as regards the date from which the petitioners would be entitled to interest on delayed payment of rebate. The question as to 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 period from the date on which the order of refund is made, is no longer res integra and stands decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) wherein, the court has held thus: "11. Section 11BB, the pivotal provision, reads thus: "11-BB. Interest on 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 shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent 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: Provided that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation.--Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section." 12. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below the proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an appellate authority or the court, then for the purpose of this section the order made by such higher appellate authority or by the court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. 13. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB 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 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. 14. It is a 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 provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. 14. It is a 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 provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. (See Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1921) 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739 ) 15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1.10.2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, wherein referring to its earlier Circular dated 2.6.1998, whereby a direction was issued to fix responsibility for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application, the Board has reiterated its earlier stand on the applicability of Section 11BB of the Act. Significantly, the Board has stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act are attracted "automatically" for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The circular reads thus: "Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX: dated 1.10.2002 F. No. 268/51/2002-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject: Non-payment of interest in refund/rebate cases which are sanctioned beyond three months of filing -- Regarding I am directed to invite your attention to provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that wherever the refund/rebate claim is sanctioned beyond the prescribed period of three months of filing of the claim, the interest thereon shall be paid to the applicant at the notified rate. The Board has been receiving a large number of representations from the claimants to say that interest due to them on sanction of refund/rebate claims beyond a period of three months has not been granted by Central excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 2. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 2. In this connection, the Board would like to stress that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officers are not required to wait for instructions from any superior officers or to look for instructions in the orders of the higher appellate authority for grant of interest. Simultaneously, the Board would like to draw attention to Circular No. 398/31/98-CX, dated 2.6.1998 wherein the Board has directed that responsibility should be fixed for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Commissioners may devise a suitable monitoring mechanism to ensure timely disposal of refund/rebate claims. Whereas all necessary action should be taken to ensure that no interest liability is attracted, should the liability arise, the legal provision for the payment of interest should be scrupulously followed." (Emphasis supplied) 16. Thus, ever since Section 11BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26.5.1995, the Department has maintained a consistent stand about its interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11B(1) of the Act." "19. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para 1 supra is 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 the order of refund is made." 8. Thus, the Supreme Court, in the above decision has clearly 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 the order of refund is made. Under the circumstances, the contention advanced by the respondents that the orders sanctioning rebate having been passed and the amount having been paid within the time limited stipulated by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 18.02.2016 made in Special Civil Applications No. 14616 of 2015 and No. 14617 of 2015, the petitioners are not entitled to interest under section 11BB of the Act, cannot be countenanced even for a moment. In the facts of the present case, initially the respondents had kept the rebate claims of the petitioners in abeyance, due to which the petitioners were constrained to approach this court and with a view to obviate any further delay in deciding the application, in the light of the observations made in its judgment and order dated 18.02.2016 made in the above referred writ petitions, this court had directed the concerned authority to decide the rebate applications within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. When the statute clearly provides that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 11BB of the Act, merely because this court had stipulated the period within which the concerned respondent should decide the application, the same would not operate in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner and curtail the statutory period prescribed under section 11BB of the Act. 9. Moreover, it is settled legal position that an interpretation of any provision of law by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and the respondents are duty bound to respect and follow the same. 9. Moreover, it is settled legal position that an interpretation of any provision of law by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and the respondents are duty bound to respect and follow the same. When the Supreme Court way back on 21.10.2011 has, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra), held that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 11BB of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order or refund is made, the respondents cannot be heard to contend otherwise. The approach of the respondents, therefore, borders on being contumacious. In the opinion of this court, if the respondent authorities duly follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Courts, such unnecessary litigation could be obviated and precious judicial time of the court would not be wasted and assessees like the petitioner would not be subjected to undue harassment without any justification. The respondent authorities are, therefore, not justified in refusing to grant interest on the rebate claims made by the petitioners in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) and hence, the petitions deserve to be allowed in terms of the relief prayed for by the petitioners. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction and pay to the petitioners, interest on the delayed payment of rebate in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Rule is made absolute in both the petitions, accordingly, with no order as to costs. .