https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338838 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 could not be denied for legal services, telecommunication, interior and electrical works, group gratuity insurance, employee deposit linked insurance and employee health insurance merely because they related to employees. The services were treated as business-related or compliance-oriented where the record showed company use, and a named employee on an invoice did not by itself prove personal use. The exclusion in Rule 2(l) applied only where the services were primarily for personal use or consumption of employees, which was not established. The gratuity cover was linked to the employer's statutory gratuity obligation, and the other insurance policies were treated as welfare compliance measures, so the refund denial was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338838 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 could not be denied for legal services, telecommunication, interior and electrical works, group gratuity insurance, employee deposit linked insurance and employee health insurance merely because they related to employees. The services were treated as business-related or compliance-oriented where the record showed company use, and a named employee on an invoice did not by itself prove personal use. The exclusion in Rule 2(l) applied only where the services were primarily for personal use or consumption of employees, which was not established. The gratuity cover was linked to the employer's statutory gratuity obligation, and the other insurance policies were treated as welfare compliance measures, so the refund denial was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338838