https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409180 Refund claims for services used in SEZ operations were rejected for alleged non-compliance with the SEZ notification, including claimed use in DTA operations, non-distribution of credit under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and insufficient proof of vendor payment or non-availment of credit. The record indicated that the claims related only to SEZ units, the services formed part of the approved input services, and invoices, bank statements, and other supporting documents had been produced. As these materials were not properly examined, the matter required fresh verification in observance of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the claims were remanded to the original authority for reconsideration. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jul 2021 07:55:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409180 Refund claims for services used in SEZ operations were rejected for alleged non-compliance with the SEZ notification, including claimed use in DTA operations, non-distribution of credit under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and insufficient proof of vendor payment or non-availment of credit. The record indicated that the claims related only to SEZ units, the services formed part of the approved input services, and invoices, bank statements, and other supporting documents had been produced. As these materials were not properly examined, the matter required fresh verification in observance of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the claims were remanded to the original authority for reconsideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409180