JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The appellant – M/s Sara Sae Pvt. Ltd., has come up in the appeal seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 01.07.2016, passed in Central Excise Appeals, passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi, Annexure no.11 to the appeal. Further prayer is made to allow the refund of Rs.21,09,929/- with appropriate interest under section 11BB of the Act. 2. The appellant - M/s Sara Sae Pvt. Ltd, is registered with the Central Excise Department bearing Registration No.AAACS6857 I XM 002, for manufacturing of oil field equipment, machinery and parts thereof, falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant supplied oil field equipment, machinery and parts thereof to M/s Oil and Natural Gas Commission and to M/s Oil India Limited under the International Competitive Bidding, on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty, under the cover of invoices. 3. The appellant made a refund claim of Rs.28,71,563/- on 09.05.2014 in the Central Excise Division, Dehradun, and this application was made with the Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT, Dehradun) on 03.10.2013. 4. Under section 8.3 (c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, there was an exemption from terminal excise duty for domestic manufacturing and supply of goods under the International Competitive Bidding (deemed exports scheme). The appellant under the Foreign Trade Policy, first charged the Central Excise Duty in the invoices, while making the sale under the Foreign Trade Policy, while making the sale in the invoices, the connotation was made “excise duty to be claimed under deemed exports scheme”. 5. The case of the appellant is that effectively no Central Excise Duty had been claimed from M/s ONGC and Oil India Limited, and in this backdrop, the cenvat credit could not be availed by the purchaser. 6. As per the Central Excise Notification No.12/2012 C.E. dated 17.03.2012, all goods falling under any chapter, supplied against International Competitive Bidding were exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty read with Condition no.41, i.e. if the sale were exempted from custom/additional custom duty then mutatis mutandis the same would ipso-facto, would also be exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty under the Notification No.12/2012 C.E. dated 17.03.2012. 7. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, had issued a Notification No.4 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 18.04.2013, where amendments were made to para 8.3 (c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, concerning “deemed exports scheme”. 7. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, had issued a Notification No.4 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 18.04.2013, where amendments were made to para 8.3 (c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, concerning “deemed exports scheme”. It was clarified that refund of terminal excise duty would be given if exemption is available, and it was further clarified that exemption from terminal excise duty was available to supply against ICB. A further clarification was given vide Circular No.16 (RE-2012/2009-2014) dated 15.03.2013, by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Director General of the Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, about exemption for supply of goods under ICB. It was further clarified that if there has been any error/oversight committed, then the agency collecting the tax, would refund it, rather than seeking the reimbursement from the another agency. It was further clarified that if the supplies are ab-initio exempted from payment of excise duty, no refund of terminal excise duty, should be provided by the DGFT. Notification dated 18.04.2013 and 15.03.2013, Annexure no.2 to this appeal. 8. The appellant made refund claims with the DGFT, Annexure no.3, collectively, after clearing goods from the factory, on the payment of the appropriate Central Excise Duty, filed the refund claim with the office of Deputy Director General, Foreign Trade (DGFT) on 14.05.2013, 27.05.2013, 05.08.2013 and 03.10.2013, for claiming refund. This was done immediately after obtaining the payment certificate from the concerned Banker (BRC)/or from the Project Authority concerned. The copies of the refund claims filed with DGFT, are being collectively enclosed as Annexure no.3, to the appeal. 9. The appellant has also placed on record detailed chart, indicating details and correlation of invoice, PO number, certificate of payment received, project authorization certificate and duty details etc., in respect to the disputed goods cleared under deemed export under ICB, Annexure no.4, to the appeal. 10. The appellant was informed by DGFT that they were now required to file the refund claims to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun Division. Thereafter, the appellant made a refund claims to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, as per Annexure no.5, to the appeal dated 23.04.2014, 07.07.2014 and 15.07.2014. 11. 10. The appellant was informed by DGFT that they were now required to file the refund claims to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun Division. Thereafter, the appellant made a refund claims to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, as per Annexure no.5, to the appeal dated 23.04.2014, 07.07.2014 and 15.07.2014. 11. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 07.08.2014, proposing to deny the refund claim of Rs.28,71,563/- vide Annexure no.6, and while issuing a show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, observed that the refund was time barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant had supplied goods against the project authority certificate through ICB, and under Condition No.29 (a) (b) (c), of the Notification No.21/2002, custom dated 01.03.2002 read with Condition No.41 of Notification No.12/2012 custom, dated 17.03.2012, the certificate was required to be given by the Authorized Officer of the Director General of Hydro Carbons (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India), instead of Ministry of Petroleum, the appellant had filed project authority certificate issued by M/S ONGC and M/s Oil India Limited. 12. The appellant gave his reply to the show-cause notice on 27.10.2014, Annexure no.7, and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, rejected the refund claim vide order dated 30.01.2015, Annexure no.8, to the appeal. The reasons given while rejecting the refund claim was that the refund claim was time barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Initially the refund claim had been filed within time with DGFT, as that was the prevalent procedure notified, and only upon the directions of DGFT, the refund claims are now been filed with the Central Excise Authority. 13. The appellant went in appeal, and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, partly allowed the refund claim, immediately after return by the DGFT, within time limit of one year, as per section 11B of the Central Excise Act, from the date of the payment of the terminal excise duty. 14. However, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, fortified the view that the project authorization certificates, were valid documents, to enable them to claim the refund of the terminal excise duty. The claims, which were made beyond a period of one year under section 11B of the Act were rejected. 14. However, the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, fortified the view that the project authorization certificates, were valid documents, to enable them to claim the refund of the terminal excise duty. The claims, which were made beyond a period of one year under section 11B of the Act were rejected. Against the above said order, the claim was rejected amounting to Rs.21,09,929/- which on further appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut, vide Annexure no.10 on the ground that the said refund claim was time barred under section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the order Annexure no.9, the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, New Delhi, this appeal was partly allowed by giving direction to the Adjudicating Authority to allow interest under section 11BB of the Act, on those refund claims, which had been filed within prescribed time limit under section 11B of the Act. However, rejecting the refund claims, on the ground that they were beyond a period of one year under section 11B of the Act, as per order dated 01.07.2016, Annexure no.11 to the appeal. 15. At the outset, a reference can be made to section 11B, which deals with claiming of the refund under Central Excise Act, 1944, which reads as under:- “11B. 15. At the outset, a reference can be made to section 11B, which deals with claiming of the refund under Central Excise Act, 1944, which reads as under:- “11B. Claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty.— (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty may make an application for refund of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person: Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed to have been made under this sub-section as amended by the said Act and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) as substituted by that Act:] Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has been paid under protest. (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund: Provided that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to— (a) 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; Explanation. – For the purposes of this section,- (A) “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. – For the purposes of this section,- (A) “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. (B) “relevant date” means (a) In the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves or, as the case may be, the excisable materials used in the manufacture of such goods.- (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India, or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier, or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (ea) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of section 5A, the date of issue of such order; (eb) in case where duty of excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made there under, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof; (ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; (f) in any other case, the date of payment of duty.” 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the present case, the refund applications, which were filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date have been allowed with interest. However, the only question for consideration in the present appeal is whether after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, which took away the powers of the DGFT, to grant the refund, the time taken before that authority where they could not pass any order of the refund can be taken out a limitation of one year where an appropirate application was made before the Competent Authority, after expiry of one year. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of “M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of “M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise” reported in 2017 (50) STR 205 SC, where the Supreme Court had examined that whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to the Tribunals, Quasi-Judicial Authority other than the courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the provisions of Section 128 of the Custom Act 1962, which dealt with specific provisions for filing an appeal i.e. a specific period was prescribed outlining which an appeal could be filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a categoric finding that the Limitation Act, 1963, would apart from being applicable to courts, would equally be applicable to Appellate Forums, and in addition to that would be applicable to cases of delay initiated suit or any other authority concerning proceedings. The time utilized before a wrong forum has to be adjusted when the appellant approaches the correct forum to claim refund. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur” reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.), had examined the case of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining a Notification dated 31.10.2000, where the rate of excise duty has been reduced with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f 01.07.1999. The refund application was made on 19.06.2001. Keeping in view the Notification dated 31.10.2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the trigger point which entitled the authority to refund was 31.10.2000, and the limitation has to be reckoned from the date the Notification has been issued. In the absence of such notification, there was no cause of action in favour of the assessee. Hence, the application moved for refund on 19.06.2001, was within time, and there was no logic in reckoning the limitation from July, 1999, under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In paragraph no.2, of the said judgment, it is observed as under:- 2. It is clear from the aforesaid that otherwise the appellant is held entitled to refund of the amount but ousted on limitation. Thus, the only issue which needs determination is as to whether the refund applications filed by the appellant were within the period of limitation or not. It is clear from the aforesaid that otherwise the appellant is held entitled to refund of the amount but ousted on limitation. Thus, the only issue which needs determination is as to whether the refund applications filed by the appellant were within the period of limitation or not. In order to decide this issue, few dates which are material for this purpose may be taken note of which are as under:- The period for which refund is sought is July, 1999, to October, 2000. The notification revising the rate of excise duty was issued on 31-10-2000 and given retrospective effect that is, w.e.f., 1-7-1999. Thus, only on the issuance of this notification, the excise duty was reduced. It would, therefore, be clear that 31-10-2000 is the trigger point which entitled the appellant to claim the refund. In the absence of any such notification there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant to make any such application for refund. As a natural consequence, therefore, the period of limitation has to be reckoned from 31-10-2000. It is not in dispute that application for refund was filed on 19-6-2001 and the period of limitation at that time was one year. The applications for refund were, therefore, clearly within limitation. We do not understand the logic or rationale behind the order of the CESTAT counting the period from July, 1999 for which the excess amount was sought to be refunded. The order of the CESTAT is, therefore, palpably wrong and erroneous in law.” 19. The ratio of the judgments are applicable in the facts of the present case, in the present case, after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, the DGFT, had no powers to grant the refund and the time taken before that authority could not be made basis to reject the application for refund on the ground of expiry of the limitation. The parties are not in dispute that prior to the Notification dated 18.04.2013, it was the DGFT, who had the powers to grant refund, once the powers was taken away from the DGFT, the assessee, whose right to refund has not been disputed by the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of the refund only on the ground that after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, his application made for refund was barred by limitation of one year as per section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 20. 20. The application in the present case was made on 03.10.2013, and after the Notification dated 18.04.2013, the period of one year would start from the date 18.04.2013, to approach the correct forum for grant of refund i.e. Deputy Commissioner. The period of one year would expire on 18.04.2014, and the appellant had approached the DGFT, Dehradun on 03.10.2013, which was before the expiry of limitation i.e. 18.04.2014. 21. Hence, these appeals are being allowed. The order dated 01.07.2016, passed in Central Excise Appeals, passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi, Annexure no.11, to the appeals is being set aside. A direction is being given to the respondent to release the refund amount of Rs.21,09,929/- with appropriate interest under section 11BB of the Act. This entire payment be made within a period of six weeks.