https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313324 For SEZ refund claims, substantive entitlement for services used in authorised operations cannot be defeated by procedural requirements in the refund notifications. Approval by the Development Commissioner or Approval Committee is only procedural, so refund cannot be denied merely because the input services were not on the approved list if the services were actually received for authorised operations. A wrongly addressed invoice or non-production of original invoices, by itself, is also not a conclusive ground to reject refund where receipt and use of the services for the SEZ unit are otherwise established. The stated rejection of refund was therefore found unsustainable and the claims were remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:47:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313324 For SEZ refund claims, substantive entitlement for services used in authorised operations cannot be defeated by procedural requirements in the refund notifications. Approval by the Development Commissioner or Approval Committee is only procedural, so refund cannot be denied merely because the input services were not on the approved list if the services were actually received for authorised operations. A wrongly addressed invoice or non-production of original invoices, by itself, is also not a conclusive ground to reject refund where receipt and use of the services for the SEZ unit are otherwise established. The stated rejection of refund was therefore found unsustainable and the claims were remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313324