Refund under beneficial exemption scheme cannot be denied for reversed Cenvat credit or mere declaration lapse.

Reversal of wrongly availed Cenvat credit on input services may satisfy a refund notification's non-availment condition, where the reversal is communicated and the record supports that credit was not effectively retained. A refund claim under a beneficial exemption scheme should not be defeated by a mere procedural lapse in filing or delayed filing of the prescribed declaration when exports, tax payment, and the underlying facts are otherwise verifiable from records. The governing approach treats such defects as technical, not substantive, and protects refund entitlement where the core conditions are met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund could be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit on input services had been availed, despite its subsequent reversal; (ii) Whether refund could be rejected for non-filing or delayed filing of the prescribed declaration under the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether refund could be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit on input services had been availed, despite its subsequent reversal.

Analysis: The refund notification required that no Cenvat credit be availed on the inputs and input services for which rebate was claimed. The record showed that the credit earlier taken had been reversed and the reversal was communicated to the Department, and the lower authorities did not effectively dispute the appellant's assertion that the tax audit report also reflected non-availment. In such a situation, reversal of credit was treated as placing the assessee in the position of having not taken the credit for the purpose of the exemption condition.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on the ground of availed Cenvat credit was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be rejected for non-filing or delayed filing of the prescribed declaration under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The declaration requirement was treated as a procedural condition intended to furnish verifiable details of the inputs and input services used for export. Since the exports and tax payment on the relevant services were not in dispute and the facts were verifiable from records, the omission was held to be a technical lapse. The governing approach was that a beneficial exemption should not be denied for mere procedural non-compliance when the substantive requirements stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected merely for the declaration lapse, and this issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the refund claims was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For a beneficial exemption or refund scheme, reversal of wrongly taken Cenvat credit may satisfy the condition of non-availment, and a procedural default such as non-filing or belated filing of a declaration cannot defeat relief where the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---