Refund eligibility for SEZ services upheld where business support service was covered and distinct entity status was recognised.

Refund under Notification No. 12/13-ST read with Section 11B was treated as admissible where the invoice described the service as Business Support Service, which fell within the approved list. Even if a specific entry was absent, that omission was treated as a procedural lapse and not a valid basis to deny refund. The SEZ unit and the domestic tariff area unit were recognised as distinct identities under Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, so refund could not be refused merely because both units belonged to the same enterprise. The denial of refund was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 12/13-ST dated 01.07.2013 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be denied on the ground that the service was not in the approved list and that the service provider and recipient were the same entity.

Analysis: The invoice and material on record showed the service as Business Support Service, which was covered by the approved list. Even assuming the service was not specifically included, the absence of such entry was treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny refund. The unit in the Special Economic Zone and the domestic tariff area unit were held to have distinct identities under Rule 19(7) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, so the refund could not be rejected merely because both units belonged to the same enterprise.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held admissible and the denial of refund was set aside.

---