SEZ service tax refund and refiled claims: evidence of authorised use supported refund, and limitation was not sustained.

Refund of service tax for input services used in authorised SEZ operations was supported where invoices, challans, journal vouchers and the Chartered Accountant's certificate established receipt and payment of the services for SEZ activity. The record showed that the unit carried on no activity other than electricity generation in the SEZ, and earlier and later refunds on the same services had already been allowed. On limitation, refiled claims were not rejected because the original claims had been filed within time and the delay in refiling was fit for condonation. The impugned order was set aside and refund relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of service tax paid on input services used for authorised operations in the SEZ, and whether the refund claims filed again after withdrawal of the initial claims were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The invoices, challans, journal vouchers and the Chartered Accountant's certificate showed that the services were received and paid for in relation to the appellant's SEZ operations. The record also indicated that the appellant carried on no activity other than generation of electricity in the SEZ, and earlier and subsequent refund claims on the same set of services had already been allowed. For the two claims questioned on limitation, the initial claims had been filed within time and were later withdrawn before being filed again. In these circumstances, the delay in refiling ought to have been condoned.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the refund, and the limitation objection was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund appeals succeeded with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of service tax for services used in authorised SEZ operations cannot be denied when the evidence establishes receipt and use of the services for such operations, and a refiled claim should not be rejected on limitation where the original claim was filed within time and delay in refiling is fit for condonation.

---