https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366522 Refund claims under the SEZ exemption framework could not be rejected on grounds not stated in the show-cause notices, because doing so denied the claimant an effective opportunity to respond and violated natural justice. Prior approval of the Unit Approval Committee was treated as procedural rather than a mandatory pre-condition for refund where the services related to authorised SEZ operations and the SEZ Act had overriding effect. Reversal of CENVAT credit without utilisation was treated as equivalent to non-availment of credit, so that condition did not bar the refund. On those principles, the refund rejection was unsustainable and consequential relief followed. 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 Refund claims under the SEZ exemption framework could not be rejected on grounds not stated in the show-cause notices, because doing so denied the claimant an effective opportunity to respond and violated natural justice. Prior approval of the Unit Approval Committee was treated as procedural rather than a mandatory pre-condition for refund where the services related to authorised SEZ operations and the SEZ Act had overriding effect. Reversal of CENVAT credit without utilisation was treated as equivalent to non-availment of credit, so that condition did not bar the refund. On those principles, the refund rejection was unsustainable and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366522