https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423980 Refund under Notification No. 12/13-ST read with Section 11B was treated as admissible where the invoice described the service as Business Support Service, which fell within the approved list. Even if a specific entry was absent, that omission was treated as a procedural lapse and not a valid basis to deny refund. The SEZ unit and the domestic tariff area unit were recognised as distinct identities under Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, so refund could not be refused merely because both units belonged to the same enterprise. The denial of refund was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Mar 2023 17:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423980 Refund under Notification No. 12/13-ST read with Section 11B was treated as admissible where the invoice described the service as Business Support Service, which fell within the approved list. Even if a specific entry was absent, that omission was treated as a procedural lapse and not a valid basis to deny refund. The SEZ unit and the domestic tariff area unit were recognised as distinct identities under Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, so refund could not be refused merely because both units belonged to the same enterprise. The denial of refund was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423980