SEZ service tax refund allowed where specified services were used for authorised operations despite mismatch in approval nomenclature.

Refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST is available for services received by an SEZ unit and used for authorised operations where the services are specified and service tax has been paid. The decisive conditions are compliance with the notification's own requirements, not exact correspondence between the refund claim's description and the wording in the approval list. A refund cannot be denied merely because employee insurance services are not described in the same nomenclature as general insurance in the approval list, where the services were actually used for authorised operations. Reliance on the Cenvat Credit Rules to refuse refund is misplaced in such cases. The rejection of refund was set aside and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 12/2013-ST is admissible for services used in authorised operations in an SEZ when the services are specified by the Development Commissioner but are alleged not to fall within the exact description approved by the Unit Approval Committee.

Analysis: The notification grants exemption by way of refund for services received by an SEZ unit and used for authorised operations, and its scheme requires approval of the list of specified services for which exemption or refund is claimed. The decisive factors are that the services must be specified, tax must have been paid, and the services must have been used in authorised operations. Once those requirements are met, rejection cannot rest on the narrow ground that the insurance services claimed as refund are not described in the approval list in the same manner, especially when the services were in fact used for the authorised operations and service tax was discharged on them. Reliance on Cenvat Credit Rules to deny such refund was held to be misplaced because the refund claim was governed by the notification's own conditions.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on the ground that the employee insurance services did not exactly fit the description of general insurance in the approval list, and the assessee was entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of refund was set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Notification No. 12/2013-ST, refund is admissible for specified services used in authorised operations in an SEZ if service tax has been paid, and mere mismatch with the descriptive nomenclature in the approval list is not a valid ground to deny the refund.

---