SEZ refund claims require fresh verification of documentary evidence before rejection for alleged non-compliance.

Refund claims for services used in SEZ operations were rejected for alleged non-compliance with the SEZ notification, including claimed use in DTA operations, non-distribution of credit under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and insufficient proof of vendor payment or non-availment of credit. The record indicated that the claims related only to SEZ units, the services formed part of the approved input services, and invoices, bank statements, and other supporting documents had been produced. As these materials were not properly examined, the matter required fresh verification in observance of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the claims were remanded to the original authority for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims relating to services used in SEZ operations were liable to be remanded for fresh consideration in view of the documentary materials produced by the appellant.

Analysis: The refund claims were rejected on the premise that the appellant had not complied with the conditions in the SEZ notification, including alleged use of services in DTA operations, non-distribution of credit under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and lack of proof of payment to vendors or non-availment of credit. The record showed that the claims pertained only to SEZ units, the disputed services formed part of the approved input services, and supporting invoices, bank statements, and other documents had been produced. Those materials had not been properly examined by the lower authorities. The matter therefore required reconsideration after verification of the documentary evidence and in observance of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claims were remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after considering the evidence.

---