The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a refund claim filed by a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit cannot be denied merely because the wrong notification was cited, so long as the substantive eligibility conditions are fulfilled.

The bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) has observed that  there was no dispute regarding the appellant’s status as a registered SEZ unit or the fact that the services were used for authorized operations. The appellant had duly complied with procedural requirements by filing prescribed forms and submitting relevant documentary evidence.

The appellant, a registered SEZ unit, had filed a refund claim amounting to ₹62,074 for service tax paid on input services used during the period from October 2012 to March 2013. The refund was claimed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 1, 2013.

Upon verification of documents, including Form A-1, Form A-4, original invoices, and bank statements evidencing payment of service tax, the adjudicating authority sanctioned ₹61,304 and rejected ₹770 due to lack of supporting documents.

However, the Department challenged the refund before the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that Notification No. 12/2013-ST was not applicable for the period in question. Accepting this contention, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the entire refund granted to the assessee.

Crucially, the Tribunal held that although the appellant had cited Notification No. 12/2013-ST, the applicable notification for the relevant period was Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012. Nonetheless, the refund could not be denied on this technical ground alone.

The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for failing to consider the applicability of Notification No. 40/2012-ST and for proceeding on the erroneous assumption that no refund mechanism existed during the relevant period.

Emphasizing the principle of substantive justice over procedural lapses, the Tribunal held that once the appellant had fulfilled all conditions and submitted necessary documents, the benefit of refund could not be denied merely due to incorrect mention of the notification.

Setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the refund granted by the adjudicating authority, along with consequential relief as per law.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s Delta Plus (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1028-CES-2026(KOL) 

Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 75034 of 2021

Date: 27.04.2026

Counsel For  Appellant: Harsh Gadodia, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Suman, Authorized Representative

Read More: DRI | No Liability Of Customs Broker Without Knowledge of Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT