https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783768 Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was denied for alleged lack of nexus and on the basis that certain services fell in the excluded category; the Tribunal held that post 01.04.2011 exclusion applies only if services are used primarily for employees' personal use, and since the authorities did not examine this aspect, the matter was remanded to allow credit if the claimant proves non-personal use. On denial of refund without invoking Rule 14, the Tribunal held eligibility for Rule 5 refund is inseparably linked to Rule 2(l) and any wrong availment must be addressed under Rule 14; refund adjudication cannot decide nexus independently, warranting remand. On SBC/invoice-period and export-realisation objections and turnover-formula adjustment, benefit could not be denied absent a specific bar; remand ordered and appeal allowed accordingly. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783768 Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was denied for alleged lack of nexus and on the basis that certain services fell in the excluded category; the Tribunal held that post 01.04.2011 exclusion applies only if services are used primarily for employees' personal use, and since the authorities did not examine this aspect, the matter was remanded to allow credit if the claimant proves non-personal use. On denial of refund without invoking Rule 14, the Tribunal held eligibility for Rule 5 refund is inseparably linked to Rule 2(l) and any wrong availment must be addressed under Rule 14; refund adjudication cannot decide nexus independently, warranting remand. On SBC/invoice-period and export-realisation objections and turnover-formula adjustment, benefit could not be denied absent a specific bar; remand ordered and appeal allowed accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783768