Procedural delay in export rebate declaration cannot defeat service tax rebate where substantive conditions are met.

Rebate of service tax on input services used for export of services could not be refused solely because the declaration was filed after export. The declaration requirement was treated as procedural, while the substantive eligibility conditions under the notification remained distinct and were satisfied where export of taxable services and use of duty- and tax-paid input services were undisputed. Post-export filing with the rebate claim was sufficient, especially since similar claims had earlier been sanctioned on the same basis. The notification's object was to grant export-related rebate, so a technical delay in filing the declaration did not justify rejection of the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of service tax on input services used in export of services could be denied solely for non-filing of the declaration prior to export under the notification governing rebate.

Analysis: The declaration requirement was treated as part of the procedural machinery under the notification, while the essential eligibility conditions were separately placed under the heading relating to conditions and limitations. The export of taxable services and use of duty- and tax-paid input services were not in dispute, and the declaration with supporting particulars was furnished later with the rebate claim. The authorities had also earlier sanctioned similar claims despite post-export declarations, which showed that prior filing had not been consistently treated as a mandatory substantive condition. Since the object of the notification was to grant export-related rebate and not to defeat claims on a technical lapse, denial of rebate merely for delayed declaration was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Rebate could not be denied only on the ground of failure to file the declaration before export, and the rejection of the rebate claim was not justified.

---