SEZ refund for exempt services cannot be denied merely because approval was granted after the claim was filed.

Refund of service tax paid on Renting of Immovable Property Service for an SEZ unit was treated as admissible where the services were used in authorised operations and later approved by the Development Commissioner. The approval requirement under the SEZ exemption scheme was regarded as procedural, not a substantive defeating exemption, and the refund could not be denied merely because approval was communicated after the claim was filed. Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, read with its overriding effect under Section 51, supported grant of the exemption benefit. The invoice defect issue was not pressed, and the refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on Renting of Immovable Property Service was admissible to the SEZ unit when approval of the service was granted after the refund claim was filed, and whether any defect in invoices could defeat the refund.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under the SEZ exemption notifications, which extend exemption for services used in authorised operations and require approval of the relevant services by the Approval Committee. The service in question had in fact been approved later by the Development Commissioner, and the tax had been paid on services actually used by the SEZ unit. The approval requirement was treated as procedural, not a condition going to the substance of the exemption. In view of the exemption scheme under Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and its overriding effect under Section 51, the benefit could not be denied merely because the approval was communicated after the claim was filed. The small invoice-related objection was not pressed.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied on the ground of delayed approval, and the assessee remained entitled to the refund.

Final Conclusion: The denial of refund was held to be unjustified, and the appeal succeeded with consequential reliefs.

---