https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204103 Refund claims under the SEZ exemption notification were examined on two points: whether a claim filed beyond six months could still be considered under the notification's extension mechanism, and whether the services were used in relation to authorised operations rather than consumed wholly within the SEZ. The record showed that further evidence and an opportunity to explain the delay were relevant to both issues. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of the time-bar objection, extension request, supporting evidence, and satisfaction of the notification conditions. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204103 Refund claims under the SEZ exemption notification were examined on two points: whether a claim filed beyond six months could still be considered under the notification's extension mechanism, and whether the services were used in relation to authorised operations rather than consumed wholly within the SEZ. The record showed that further evidence and an opportunity to explain the delay were relevant to both issues. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of the time-bar objection, extension request, supporting evidence, and satisfaction of the notification conditions. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204103