https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394170 A Special Economic Zone developer entitled to exemption for services used in authorised operations could not be denied refund on the ground of limitation in the service tax notification or Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The SEZ Act, 2005 grants substantive exemption and, by its overriding clause, prevails over inconsistent levy and refund restrictions. A notification issued under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is only facilitative and cannot curtail that statutory immunity. The refund claims were therefore not time-barred and the denial was unsustainable, so refund relief followed in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394170 A Special Economic Zone developer entitled to exemption for services used in authorised operations could not be denied refund on the ground of limitation in the service tax notification or Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The SEZ Act, 2005 grants substantive exemption and, by its overriding clause, prevails over inconsistent levy and refund restrictions. A notification issued under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is only facilitative and cannot curtail that statutory immunity. The refund claims were therefore not time-barred and the denial was unsustainable, so refund relief followed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394170