<?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 (9) TMI 293 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798267</link>
    <description>Service tax exemption for services used in authorised Special Economic Zone operations arises substantively under Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Section 51 gives that entitlement overriding effect over inconsistent provisions. The six-month refund-claim limit in Notification No. 9/2009-ST is procedural and cannot wholly defeat an undisputed statutory exemption where authorised use and substantive eligibility are established. Authorities on refunds deriving solely from notifications are distinguishable. Refund should therefore not be rejected solely because the claim was filed after the prescribed six-month period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:24:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 293 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798267</link>
      <description>Service tax exemption for services used in authorised Special Economic Zone operations arises substantively under Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Section 51 gives that entitlement overriding effect over inconsistent provisions. The six-month refund-claim limit in Notification No. 9/2009-ST is procedural and cannot wholly defeat an undisputed statutory exemption where authorised use and substantive eligibility are established. Authorities on refunds deriving solely from notifications are distinguishable. Refund should therefore not be rejected solely because the claim was filed after the prescribed six-month period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>