Tribunal grants refund claims for SEZ services, emphasizes nexus certification & eligibility under Central Excise Act.

The tribunal allowed all appeals and set aside the rejection of refund claims for services used in SEZ authorized operations. It emphasized the nexus certification by the Approval Committee and the eligibility for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal found the first appellate authority's reasons illogical and contrary to the law, granting full consequential benefits to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for services used in SEZ authorized operations.

Analysis:
The appellant, a SEZ unit, sought a refund for services used in authorized operations as per Notification No. 09/2009-ST. The Revenue rejected most refund claims but allowed a partial refund. The first appellate authority upheld the rejection, stating services must be used in authorized operations. The appellate tribunal noted that the LoA listed authorized operations as footwear manufacture. The approved services list by UAC included services provided by the appellant. The tribunal found the rejection illogical as the services were used for sale/marketing, not self-consumption. The tribunal referenced a Mumbai Bench ruling in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. case, emphasizing the Approval Committee's nexus certification for services used in authorized operations.

The tribunal analyzed Notification No. 09/2009 (ST) and its conditions, noting no non-fulfillment by the appellant. The LoA was amended to include additional items for manufacture. The UAC approved specified services for authorized operations. The tribunal found the Revenue cannot question UAC's approval, and the rejection was baseless. The Mumbai Bench ruling emphasized that services wholly consumed within SEZ are eligible for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, even if not under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. The tribunal set aside the first appellate authority's illogical reasons and allowed all appeals with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the rejection of refund claims for services used in SEZ authorized operations, emphasizing the nexus certification by the Approval Committee and the eligibility for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal found the first appellate authority's reasons illogical and contrary to the law, allowing all appeals with full consequential benefits.

---