https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352915 Refund of service tax for services used in an SEZ cannot be denied on mere suspicion or on unverified objections about nexus and invoices in the head office name. Where the Development Commissioner had approved the relevant services and the Revenue produced no cogent evidence to disprove utilisation in the SEZ, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had failed to conduct the necessary enquiry and had relied on conjecture instead of proof. The burden to justify denial of the refund remained on the Revenue, which it did not discharge; the refund was therefore admissible. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352915 Refund of service tax for services used in an SEZ cannot be denied on mere suspicion or on unverified objections about nexus and invoices in the head office name. Where the Development Commissioner had approved the relevant services and the Revenue produced no cogent evidence to disprove utilisation in the SEZ, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had failed to conduct the necessary enquiry and had relied on conjecture instead of proof. The burden to justify denial of the refund remained on the Revenue, which it did not discharge; the refund was therefore admissible. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 31 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352915