https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366522 The Tribunal held that the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally unsustainable. It emphasized that Under Approval Committee (UAC) approval under the SEZ Act was procedural, not mandatory, and that procedural infractions should not lead to refund rejection. The Tribunal also noted that reversal of CENVAT credit without utilization qualified as non-availing credit, entitling the appellant to exemption benefits. The impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant based on compliance with SEZ Act and Notification No.12/2013 conditions. en-us Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366522 The Tribunal held that the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally unsustainable. It emphasized that Under Approval Committee (UAC) approval under the SEZ Act was procedural, not mandatory, and that procedural infractions should not lead to refund rejection. The Tribunal also noted that reversal of CENVAT credit without utilization qualified as non-availing credit, entitling the appellant to exemption benefits. The impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant based on compliance with SEZ Act and Notification No.12/2013 conditions. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366522