https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253741 A SEZ unit's refund claim for services used in authorised operations should not be rejected merely because it was filed under the wrong service tax notifications. The applicable exemption was Notification No. 40/2012-ST, and reference to Notifications No. 41/2012-ST and No. 52/2011-ST in the application did not, by itself, defeat the claim. The matter required examination under the correct notification, and compliance with its conditions remained open because the claimant said the deficiency communication was not received and sought an opportunity to file evidence. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the claimant. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 22:20:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253741 A SEZ unit's refund claim for services used in authorised operations should not be rejected merely because it was filed under the wrong service tax notifications. The applicable exemption was Notification No. 40/2012-ST, and reference to Notifications No. 41/2012-ST and No. 52/2011-ST in the application did not, by itself, defeat the claim. The matter required examination under the correct notification, and compliance with its conditions remained open because the claimant said the deficiency communication was not received and sought an opportunity to file evidence. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the claimant. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253741