https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392568 Refund of service tax on input services used for SEZ authorised operations was held admissible where the services were actually received and consumed by the SEZ unit, even though the challans showed a different registration number and address of the same company. The objection based only on technical mismatch in registration particulars was rejected because the tax burden had not been otherwise availed as credit and the services related to the approved operations. The substantive entitlement to refund was therefore not defeated by the use of another internal registration code within the same corporate entity. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:56:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392568 Refund of service tax on input services used for SEZ authorised operations was held admissible where the services were actually received and consumed by the SEZ unit, even though the challans showed a different registration number and address of the same company. The objection based only on technical mismatch in registration particulars was rejected because the tax burden had not been otherwise availed as credit and the services related to the approved operations. The substantive entitlement to refund was therefore not defeated by the use of another internal registration code within the same corporate entity. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392568