CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/425/16-17 dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, C.EX., & S.T., Nagpur)

Drilbits International P. Ltd. .… Appellant Plot No. 66, MIDC Estate, Satpur, Nashik- 422 007.

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and …. Respondent Service Tax, Nashik Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik- 422 002.

Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85514/2026 Date of Hearing: 20.03.2026 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 Per: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and perused the case records. Rejection of the refund application filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of limitation, is the subject matter of present dispute.

2. The appellants in this case, had paid the terminal excise duty in respect of supply of Rock Roller Bits to M/s. Oil India Ltd. and ONGC. The appellants had claimed the refund of such Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on the ground that the supplies made to the said buyers should be considered as ‘deemed export’ as per the provisions contained in the EXIM Policy 2009-14 and thus, no duty was required to be paid on such supplies. Initially, the refund application was filed by the appellants before the JDGFT, Pune. The said application filed before the authorities under the Foreign Trade Policy was returned on the ground that no duty was required to be paid and the refund should be taken from the tax collecting authority. Thereafter, the appellant had filed the refund application before the jurisdictional central excise authorities, claiming refund of the excise duty (TED) paid by them. The refund application was rejected by the central excise authority on the ground that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act of 1944 has not been adhered to and that since the refund application was filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date, the same is barred by limitation of time.

3. It is an admitted fact on record that as per the Export-Import Policy, the supplies made to the specific buyers under the International Competitive Bidding (ICB) were not exigible for payment of TED. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the goods in question were supplied by the appellants to M/s. Oil India Ltd. and ONGC under the ICB and such supplies are to be considered as deemed export and no TED was required to be paid. However, since the appellants paid such duty and claimed the refund before the DGFT and upon return of the said application by the said authorities, the same was filed before the jurisdictional central excise authority, it cannot be said that no refund application was filed by the appellants. Since the authorities below had not questioned about non-filing of refund application before the DGFT and return of the same by the said authority for subsequent filing before the excise authorities, the time limit prescribed under Section 11B ibid should be reckoned from the date of return of the refund application by the DGFT authorities. We find that in an identical case, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gawar Construction Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Rohtak - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 780 (Tri-Chan.), has allowed the appeal, holding that time spent in pursuing remedy before the DGFT to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the time limit for filing of refund under Section 11B of the Act of 1944. The relevant paragraph recorded in the said order is quoted herein below:

“24. The another ground of rejection claim is that the refund claim is barred by time-limit in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. As per the time-limit prescribed, it is admitted position that in terms of Section 11B of the Act, the relev