ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Revenue is in appeal.
2. After hearing both sides and considering the issue, it is found :
(a) Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), vide an order dated 16-3-2001, granted refund on an appeal preferred by the Respondents herein.
(b) Refund amounts were paid. However, the claim on payment of interest under Section 11BB was rejected. The Respondents filed an appeal. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ordered the payment of interest, vide order dated 22-6-2001.
(c) Revenue filed this appeal, now before us, against order dated 22-6-2001, raising the contentions - (i) Issue on merits causing this refund is pending before the Larger Bench in this very case of Respondents. (j) If interest is paid, then it could not be recovered, as there was no provision for recovery of erroneous refund.
(d) The issue, both sides agree, on merits is settled in assessees’ favour and the Apex Court has rejected Revenue’s S.L.P. filed. Ld. DR raises an interesting question of ethics of payment of interest when the delay was caused due to uncertainty of the issue on merits which was determined later by the Larger Bench. We find no grounds to deny the claim of interest on the grounds as raised in this appeal and made out by the ld. DR as the issue on merits is settled by the Bench and the Apex Court and Section 11BB mandates payment interest on delayed refunds. Ethics have almost no role to play in taxation matters. Social justice needs is another issue. When interest on tax due from a citizen is statutorily incorporated, it would be ethical and a just move to grant interest on incorrectly collected amounts in garb of tax. The theory of unjust enrichment cannot be stretched to deny interest determined as due by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in the facts of this case.
3. We find no merits in the appeal filed by revenue. The same is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court)