<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (5) TMI 798 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791596</link>
    <description>Service tax paid on services used for authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone was held refundable where the tax burden had already been borne and the claim was otherwise within limitation. The Tribunal reasoned that the exemption notification for services used in relation to authorised operations did not prevent refund merely because the services were wholly consumed within the SEZ or because the claim was made under the notification framework. It also relied on the SEZ regime&#039;s treatment of such supplies as exports and the overriding effect of the SEZ Act to recognise that a broader refund remedy remained available under the general refund provision. Rejection of the refund claims was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 09:01:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 798 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791596</link>
      <description>Service tax paid on services used for authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone was held refundable where the tax burden had already been borne and the claim was otherwise within limitation. The Tribunal reasoned that the exemption notification for services used in relation to authorised operations did not prevent refund merely because the services were wholly consumed within the SEZ or because the claim was made under the notification framework. It also relied on the SEZ regime&#039;s treatment of such supplies as exports and the overriding effect of the SEZ Act to recognise that a broader refund remedy remained available under the general refund provision. Rejection of the refund claims was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>