SEZ refund eligibility and condonation of delay under refund notification require proper scrutiny, not mechanical rejection.

Refund of service tax on rent-a-cab services used for authorised operations in an SEZ was treated as admissible because the service appeared in the approved list under Notification No. 40/2012-ST, so denial on the ground of ineligibility could not stand. The limitation objection also required reconsideration because the notification allowed condonation of delay by the proper authority; a rejection without adequate appreciation of the delay explanation and supporting material was not sustainable. The matter therefore required fresh examination on condonation after giving the assessee an opportunity and following natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund of service tax paid on rent-a-cab services used for authorized operations by an SEZ unit was admissible; (ii) whether rejection of refund claims as time-barred warranted reconsideration in view of the power to condone delay under the refund notification.

Issue (i): whether refund of service tax paid on rent-a-cab services used for authorized operations by an SEZ unit was admissible.

Analysis: The refund claims related to services received for authorized operations in an SEZ under Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The approved list of services for authorized operations included rent-a-cab operator services. Since the service was specifically covered by the approved list, the denial of refund on the ground that it was not an eligible service could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refund on rent-a-cab services was admissible and the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of refund claims as time-barred warranted reconsideration in view of the power to condone delay under the refund notification.

Analysis: Clause 3(a) of Notification No. 40/2012-ST required filing within one year from the end of the month of payment of service tax, but also vested discretion in the proper Central Excise authority to condone delay. The record showed that some delay had been condoned while the remaining delay was rejected without adequate appreciation of the circumstances. The delay explanation and supporting particulars required fresh examination, and the matter had to be reconsidered after giving opportunity and following natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection on limitation was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on condonation of delay.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the refund eligibility issue, while the time-bar issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification expressly permits condonation of delay, the authority must exercise that discretion on a proper appreciation of the surrounding facts and cannot reject the claim mechanically on limitation grounds.

---