Merchant-Exporter's Appeal for Refund Claim Dismissed

The appeal by a Merchant-Exporter for a refund claim related to Clearing and Forwarding and courier services used in export was dismissed. The rejection of the refund claim due to failure to file the mandatory declaration in Form A-2 for STC code allotment was upheld. Despite arguments of denial of natural justice, the rejection was deemed valid as the appellant did not comply with the declaration requirement. The Adjudicating Authority affirmed the rejection, emphasizing the appellant's ineligibility to apply for a refund without fulfilling the necessary declaration. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the rejection of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the refund claim filed by the appellant, a Merchant-Exporter, for services of Clearing and Forwarding and courier services used in the export of goods, and the rejection of the refund claim due to failure to file the mandatory declaration in Form A-2 for allotment of STC code number.

Refund Claim and Declaration Requirement:
The appellant, a Merchant-Exporter, filed a refund claim for services used in export as per Notification No. 7/2009-S.T. However, as a Merchant-Exporter not registered under Central Excise, they were required to file a declaration in Form A-2 for STC code allotment before filing the refund claim in Form A-1. The appellant did not fulfill this requirement, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The absence of the declaration and STC code allotment was deemed mandatory before filing the refund claim by a merchant-manufacturer.

Denial of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim without a personal hearing by the Asstt. Commissioner amounted to a denial of natural justice. They requested a remand for a de novo decision after granting a personal hearing. However, the rejection was upheld as the appellant did not comply with the mandatory declaration requirement for STC code allotment.

Adjudication and Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant's failure to file the mandatory declaration in Form A-2 and obtain an STC code number before the refund claim rendered the claim correctly rejected. Despite the lack of a show cause notice and personal hearing at the original adjudication stage, the rejection was deemed valid due to the appellant's ineligibility to apply for a refund without fulfilling the declaration requirement. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already provided a hearing, further supporting the validity of the rejection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.

(Order dictated in the open Court)

---