https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375551 Notifications issued under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 were treated as procedural measures for implementing the exemption and immunity available under Sections 7 and 26(e) of the SEZ Act, 2005. On that construction, the amended clause in Notification No. 15/2009-ST could not be read to deny refund of service tax on services consumed wholly within the SEZ. The substantive SEZ benefit prevailed over the refund procedure, so refund entitlement remained available to the unit and denial of refund was not sustainable. en-us Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 06:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375551 Notifications issued under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 were treated as procedural measures for implementing the exemption and immunity available under Sections 7 and 26(e) of the SEZ Act, 2005. On that construction, the amended clause in Notification No. 15/2009-ST could not be read to deny refund of service tax on services consumed wholly within the SEZ. The substantive SEZ benefit prevailed over the refund procedure, so refund entitlement remained available to the unit and denial of refund was not sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375551