TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claims aggregating to Rs. 33,98,948/- filed by the appellant under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 in respect of services received for authorised operations in their Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant M/s Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., established a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Srikakulam District for manufacture of Pharmaceuticals and active Pharmaceutical ingredients. The unit was duly approved by the competent SEZ Authorities and was engaged in authorised operations as approved under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. 3. During the period January, 2015 to November, 2015 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Ltd., it is submitted that service tax liability was discharged under RCM and copies of service tax payment, challans, accounting records and supporting documents were produced before the Authorities. 7. With regard to Rent-a-cab services, it is submitted that service tax was admittedly discharged under RCM and complete documentary evidence was produced. Merely, because the service provider mentioned the appellant's address, substantive benefit cannot be denied. 8. In respect of Works Contract Services received from M/s Afita Construction Pvt Ltd., for piling works relating to Harmone Block, it is argued that the services were received during establishment of the SEZ unit and were integrally connected with the authorised operations.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities and submits that Notification No. 12/2013-ST is a conditional notification and all conditions prescribed therein are required to be fulfilled strictly. It is argued that that several invoices were defective, original documents were not produced in certain cases and some services were not included in the approved list of services. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. 13. The short issue involved is, whether refund of the service tax paid on services admittedly used in connection with the authorised operations of the appellant's SEZ unit can be denied on account of procedural deficiencies in doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax liability under RCM and produced challans, evidencing payment of tax. The Lower Authorities have not disputed the tax payment. Where the tax has been paid directly to the Government under RCM and the services have been utilised for authorised operations, substantive benefit cannot be denied merely because original invoices were not available for a small portion of the claim. 16. The refund relating to Rent-a-cab services was rejected because the appellant's address was affixed by rubber stamp and certain corrections were made in the invoices. We find that there is no dispute regarding receipt of services, payment of service tax under RCM and utilisation of services in connection with the SEZ unit. The objection of the Revenue is pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund merely because the exact description appearing in the invoice does not identically match the wording used in the approved list would amount to elevating form over substance. 20. The decisions relied upon by the appellant consistently hold that benefits available to SEZ units cannot be denied on procedural or technical grounds when the substantive conditions stand satisfied. 21. The ratio emerging from the judicial pronouncements is that the objective of the SEZ scheme must be given effect and refund claims should be examined from the standpoint of actual use of service for authorised operations rather than a strict adherence to procedural formalities. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, we find that t....