https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339875 Refund of service tax for specified services used in authorised SEZ operations could not be denied merely because CENVAT credit had been taken earlier, where the credit was reversed before the refund claim. Notification No. 17/2011-ST required that no such credit be taken, and the applied principle was that reversal treats the credit as not having been taken, satisfying the condition through substantive compliance. Following the cited Supreme Court-approved approach, the tribunal held that prior availment did not defeat the refund once the credit stood reversed. The refund rejection was set aside. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339875 Refund of service tax for specified services used in authorised SEZ operations could not be denied merely because CENVAT credit had been taken earlier, where the credit was reversed before the refund claim. Notification No. 17/2011-ST required that no such credit be taken, and the applied principle was that reversal treats the credit as not having been taken, satisfying the condition through substantive compliance. Following the cited Supreme Court-approved approach, the tribunal held that prior availment did not defeat the refund once the credit stood reversed. The refund rejection was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339875