SEZ refund eligibility upheld for authorised operations, but unexplained invoice-gate pass mismatch justified denial of part of the claim.

Refund under Notification No. 09/2009-ST, as amended, was available for rent-a-cab service, convention service and out-of-pocket expenses used for authorised operations of an SEZ unit, where the services were received for the SEZ-based business activity, not used by any third party, and were covered by the approved list of the Development Commissioner. Refund was therefore admissible on those services. However, rejection of refund of a specific amount was sustained because the invoice item code did not tally with the gate pass and the discrepancy was neither explained before the lower authority nor challenged effectively on appeal. The result was partial relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund under Notification No. 09/2009-ST, as amended, was admissible in respect of rent-a-cab service, convention service, and out of pocket expenses said to have been used for authorized operations in the SEZ. (ii) Whether rejection of refund of Rs. 3,090/- on the ground that the item code in the invoice did not tally with the enclosed gate pass was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether refund under Notification No. 09/2009-ST, as amended, was admissible in respect of rent-a-cab service, convention service, and out of pocket expenses said to have been used for authorized operations in the SEZ.

Analysis: The services were received for the appellant's SEZ-based business activity and were not shown to have been used by any person other than the appellant. On the facts found, the services were treated as having been used for the authorized operation of the SEZ unit, and the services were also stated to be covered by the approved list of the Development Commissioner.

Conclusion: The refund claim for these services was held to be admissible and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of refund of Rs. 3,090/- on the ground that the item code in the invoice did not tally with the enclosed gate pass was sustainable.

Analysis: The discrepancy between the invoice and the gate pass was not explained by the appellant either before the lower authority or in the appeal, and no ground was raised to dislodge that finding.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund of Rs. 3,090/- was upheld and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal refund issue but failed in relation to the specific amount of Rs. 3,090/-, resulting in a partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Services received for the business activity of an SEZ unit and used for its authorized operations are eligible for refund under the applicable SEZ service tax exemption notification, while an unexplained documentary mismatch can justify denial of refund to the extent of that discrepancy.

---