Delayed declaration under export rebate rules is only a procedural lapse; rebate entitlement survives if substantive conditions are met.

Delayed filing of the declaration under an export rebate notification is a procedural defect and does not by itself defeat rebate entitlement where the substantive conditions for export benefit are otherwise satisfied. Applying the governing precedent, the rejection of rebate solely on that ground could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to relief on the core issue. The matter was remanded for limited recalculation of the admissible refund in accordance with the rebate scheme and the applicable precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of service tax on exported services could be denied merely because the declaration required under the rebate notification was filed belatedly, and whether the matter required recalculation of the refund claim in light of the applicable precedent.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the delay in filing the declaration as a procedural lapse and followed the binding precedent that late filing does not by itself defeat entitlement to rebate where the substantive conditions for export benefit are otherwise satisfied. It also noted that the dispute had to be re-examined for the limited purpose of computing the admissible refund in accordance with the governing precedent and the rebate scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection of rebate could not be sustained solely on the ground of delayed declaration, and the assessee was entitled to relief on the core issue. The matter was remanded for limited recalculation of the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated declaration under an export rebate notification is a procedural defect and, by itself, cannot deny rebate when the substantive entitlement to export benefit is otherwise established.

---