Procedural declaration lapse under refund notification cannot defeat an otherwise eligible export service refund claim.

A declaration prescribed under a refund notification may be treated as a procedural condition where the claimant is otherwise eligible. The Tribunal noted that the refund arose from exported taxable services supported by taxable input services and excisable inputs, and that the only reason for rejection was late filing of the declaration. Because the declaration was filed before adjudication and the defect was curable, rejection solely on that ground was held unsustainable. The refund claim was directed to be examined on merits and the matter remanded for consideration of substantive eligibility in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether filing of the declaration prescribed under Notification No. 12/2005-ST is mandatory so as to defeat the refund claim, or whether delay in filing the declaration can be condoned and the claim examined on merits.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from exported taxable output services for which the appellant had used taxable input services and excisable inputs. The sole basis for rejection by the lower authorities was the absence of the prescribed declaration at the initial stage. The declaration was, however, filed before adjudication. The Tribunal noted that earlier decisions had treated the declaration requirement under the notification as procedural and had held that delay in compliance could be condoned where the claimant was otherwise eligible. Applying that view, the rejection based only on a procedural lapse was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The declaration requirement was condoned as procedural, and the refund claim was directed to be processed on merits in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the matter was sent back for consideration of the refund claim on its substantive eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration prescribed by a refund notification may be treated as a procedural condition, and non-timely compliance should not defeat an otherwise eligible refund claim where the defect is curable and is made good before adjudication.

---