https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464796 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. The tribunal found the appellant had been lawfully availing the earlier notification and obtained the approved list of authorized services for SEZ operations in November 2011, fulfilling the basic requirements of the superseding notification. The tribunal held that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural or minor defects, and directed that the benefit of the notification be extended in respect of services exported to the SEZ. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 15:39:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464796 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. The tribunal found the appellant had been lawfully availing the earlier notification and obtained the approved list of authorized services for SEZ operations in November 2011, fulfilling the basic requirements of the superseding notification. The tribunal held that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural or minor defects, and directed that the benefit of the notification be extended in respect of services exported to the SEZ. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464796