SEZ Refund Not Barred by 6-Month Limit

Centax Editorial Board

March 17, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai (2026) 39 Centax 360 (Tri.-Mad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

S/Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) & Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (T)
Shri K. Sivarajan, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant.
Ms G. Krupa, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, a unit operating in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), filed refund claims under Notification No. 9/2009-ST, dated 03-03-2009 seeking refund of Service Tax (ST) paid on services utilised for authorised operations within the SEZ. The adjudicating authority partly rejected the refund claim through an order-in-original, inter alia on the ground that a portion of the refund claims had been filed beyond the six-month period prescribed under clause 2(f) of Notification No. 9/2009-ST (supra). Aggrieved by the partial denial of refund, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection of the claim. The appellant thereafter filed appeals before the tribunal contending that the services were used for authorised operations within the SEZ and that the benefit of exemption could not be denied merely on the ground that the refund claims were filed beyond the six-month period prescribed in the notification. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (SEZ Act) is a special and self-contained legislation governing exemptions available to SEZ units. The tribunal observed that section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the substantive exemption in respect of taxes on services used for authorised operations within an SEZ. It further held that the time limit of six months prescribed under Notification No. 9/2009-ST, dated 03-03-2009 is procedural in nature and cannot be invoked to deny the substantive exemption flowing from section 26 of the SEZ Act. The tribunal also noted that once the services on which ST was paid were authorised by the Approval Committee for authorised operations in the SEZ, the refund could not be denied merely on the ground of delay in filing the claim. Accordingly, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs in accordance with the law.

List of Cases Cited

Congnizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2021 (10) TMI 642-CESTAT CHENNAI — Relied on [Paras 13, 14]
Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 473 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 8]
Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 889-893/2013, dated 28.03.2013 — Relied on [Para 11]
Hexaware Technologies Limited.v. Commissioner — (2026) 39 Centax 375 (Tri. – Chennai) — Relied on [Paras 12, 16]
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Paras 11, 15]
Vedanta Aluminium Limited v. Commissioner — 2024 (3) TMI 1325-CESTAT KOLKATA — Relied on [Paras 13, 14]
Wardha Power Company. v. Commissioner — 2013 (30) S.T.R. 520 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 11]