https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331463 Refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST for a Special Economic Zone developer was held admissible only where the specified services had been approved by the Approval Committee when the services were availed. Clause 3(I) was treated as a substantive condition linked to the time of receipt of services, not merely a requirement to be met before filing the refund claim. Because the impugned services were not approved at that stage, the exemption condition was not satisfied and refund was denied. The earlier decision cited by the assessee was distinguished because the revenue objection raised in the present matter had not been considered there. en-us Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331463 Refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST for a Special Economic Zone developer was held admissible only where the specified services had been approved by the Approval Committee when the services were availed. Clause 3(I) was treated as a substantive condition linked to the time of receipt of services, not merely a requirement to be met before filing the refund claim. Because the impugned services were not approved at that stage, the exemption condition was not satisfied and refund was denied. The earlier decision cited by the assessee was distinguished because the revenue objection raised in the present matter had not been considered there. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331463