CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I Service Tax Appeal No. 41410 of 2016 (Arising out of order in Appeal no. 209/2016 (STA-I), dated 23.03.2016 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, (Appeals – I), Newry Towers, 2^nd Floor, No.2054 – 1, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040).

M/s. Tata International Limited …. Appellant Plot No.15, Mechano Industrial Estate Velappanchavadi Chennai 600 077 VERSUS Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ...Respondent Ananda Office Centre, I Floor

459, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 APPEARANCE :

Ms. Mallows Priscilla P, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Rajini Menon, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.40277/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 04.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2026 Per Mr. Ajayan T.V.

Tata International Limited, the Appellant herein, is aggrieved by the Order in Appeal No.209/2016 (STA-I) dated 23.03.2016 (impugned order), whereby the Ld. Appellate Authority has upheld the Order in Original No.219/2011 dated 24.11.2011 of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by which the Appellant’s refund claim was rejected.

2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is stated to be engaged, inter-

alia in the export of leather garments, footwear and leather articles and in the course of the said business has entered into agreements with commission agents located outside India to procure export orders, in terms of which, commission was paid to such agents.

3. The Appellant has discharged service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on the said commission in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). In terms of Notification No.41/2007- Cus dated 06.10.2007 as amended (refund notification) the appellant was entitled to claim refund of the service tax paid on input services, i.e. the commission agent services used for the export of goods. Accordingly, for the period from April 2008 to March 2009, the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of an amount of Rs.29,97,999/-, which is stated to have been revised to Rs.25,50,562/-.

4. Pursuant to the refund claims filed, the appellant was issued three separate show cause notices proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground that the Appellant had not fulfilled condition (ii) of Sl.No.15 of Schedule to the refund notification inasmuch as the appellant had not indicated the commission amount in all the shipping bills. In so far as the SCN No.03/2010 dated 16.02.2010 pertaining to the period April 2008 to November 2008 was concerned, in addition to the aforesaid contention, an additional ground for denial of refund was that the claim was filed beyond the six month from the end of the relevant quarter as stipulated in the refund notification and that therefore the claim for the period from April 2008 to September 2008 was hit by limitation. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide the Order in Original No.219/2011 dated 24.11.2011 confirmed the proposals in the SCNs and rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which stood rejected vide the order impugned in this Appeal. Hence this Appeal.

5. Ms.Mallows Priscilla P., Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to claims for refund of service tax. Under section 11B of the Central Excise Act ibid, the prescribed time limit for filing a refund application is one year from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation B to Section 11B of the CEA 1944. In the instant case the relevant date as per the said Explanation to Section 11B is the ‘date of payment of duty’, since refund of service tax paid to commission agents is not specifically covered under any of the other clauses, i.e. clauses (a) to (e) of the said explanation. She would contend that when the time limit of