SEZ refund claims and extension of time require fresh consideration where delay and authorised-use evidence are supported by further material.

Refund claims under the SEZ exemption notification were examined on two points: whether a claim filed beyond six months could still be considered under the notification's extension mechanism, and whether the services were used in relation to authorised operations rather than consumed wholly within the SEZ. The record showed that further evidence and an opportunity to explain the delay were relevant to both issues. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of the time-bar objection, extension request, supporting evidence, and satisfaction of the notification conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim, to the extent filed beyond six months, could be considered on the basis of the extended period contemplated by the notification; (ii) Whether the remaining refund claim satisfied the requirement that the services were not consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone and were used in relation to authorized operations.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim, to the extent filed beyond six months, could be considered on the basis of the extended period contemplated by the notification.

Analysis: The refund claim was partly beyond the prescribed six-month period. The notification permitted filing within six months, or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner might allow. The request for an opportunity to place supporting reasons and evidence for the delay was found to be reasonable.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of the time-bar objection and the request for extension of time.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining refund claim satisfied the requirement that the services were not consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone and were used in relation to authorized operations.

Analysis: The lower authority had rejected the claim on the footing that the services were not proved to have been used for authorized operations and that the exception relating to services consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone had not been satisfied. The matter required examination of further evidence, with reference to the amended notification and the Board circular issued in that context.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the original authority for fresh examination of the supporting evidence and the applicable notification conditions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the refund matters were sent back for reconsideration after affording the appellants an opportunity to substantiate both the delay and the eligibility conditions under the relevant exemption notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing notification permits extension of the filing period and the claimant seeks to establish eligibility through additional evidence, a remand for fresh consideration is appropriate rather than final rejection on the existing record.

---