SEZ refund claim cannot be denied on a technical invoicing distinction where tax was consolidated and no revenue prejudice was shown.

Refund of service tax paid on services used by an SEZ unit could not be denied merely because rent for immovable property and for fixtures and furniture was shown in separate invoices, where the tax was consolidated in the challan as rent of immovable property. In the post-negative-list regime, the services were taxable unless covered by the negative list, and no revenue prejudice or tax distinction was shown to arise from the invoicing format. The refund claim had to be assessed in the light of the beneficial nature of export-related relief, so a purely technical objection was insufficient. The denial of refund was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on services used by an SEZ unit could be denied merely because the rental amounts were shown in separate invoices for immovable property and for fixtures and furniture, though the tax was consolidated in the challan as rent of immovable property.

Analysis: The impugned period fell within the post-negative-list regime, when services other than those in the negative list were taxable. The rejection was based on the manner of invoicing, but no tax distinction or revenue prejudice was shown to arise from the invoices describing the components separately. The treatment adopted by the appellant was on record, and the refund claim had to be considered in light of the beneficial nature of export-related relief rather than on a merely technical objection.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on the stated technical ground and the denial was unsustainable. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

---