https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405679 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim. It emphasized that services used for authorized operations within the SEZ should be eligible for refund, regardless of technical defects like non-inclusion in approved lists. The decision highlighted the supremacy of SEZ Act's provisions in granting refunds and stressed that procedural lapses should not impede valid refund claims. The ruling aimed to ensure that entities receive benefits for utilizing services for approved operations within SEZ, despite minor procedural deficiencies. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405679 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim. It emphasized that services used for authorized operations within the SEZ should be eligible for refund, regardless of technical defects like non-inclusion in approved lists. The decision highlighted the supremacy of SEZ Act's provisions in granting refunds and stressed that procedural lapses should not impede valid refund claims. The ruling aimed to ensure that entities receive benefits for utilizing services for approved operations within SEZ, despite minor procedural deficiencies. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405679