Refund entitlement under a notification can be denied where mandatory procedural conditions are not complied with.

Entitlement to refund of service tax under the notification depended on strict compliance with the prescribed procedural and conditional requirements. The appellant failed to furnish the documents required by the appellate authority within the time granted, and the record did not show satisfactory compliance with the mandatory conditions of the scheme. The procedural lapse was treated as substantive, not merely technical, because it went to the refund entitlement itself. On that basis, denial of the refund was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax claimed under the notification could be denied for non-fulfilment of the prescribed procedural requirements.

Analysis: The refund under the notification was dependent upon compliance with the stipulated procedures and conditions. The appellant did not furnish the documents called for by the appellate authority within the time granted, and the record did not show satisfactory compliance with the mandatory requirements of the notification. In these circumstances, the procedural lapse was not a mere technicality but went to the entitlement under the refund scheme.

Conclusion: The denial of refund was justified and the order of the first appellate authority was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the refund claim under the notification could not be sustained without compliance with the prescribed procedural and conditional requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification makes entitlement contingent on fulfilment of specified procedures and conditions, non-compliance with those requirements can validly result in rejection of the refund claim.

---