TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was upheld. The change in cause title from M/s. Laser World (P) Ltd. to M/s. SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. was allowed by this Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Order No. 40832/2025 dated 04.08.2025. As such, M/s. SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. is hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" and the said Order-in-Appeal as "the impugned order". 2. The brief facts, as culled out from the records, are that the appellant, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service, filed a refund claim of Rs.29,94,464/- under Rule 5 for January 2010 to March 2010 towards accumulated and unutilised CENVAT credit on input services used for exported output services. The adjudicating authority sanctioned Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the prescribed procedure and that the later-period services could not be rejected merely on that ground if otherwise eligible. 4. Per Contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayana supported the impugned order and submitted that Group Insurance and Club Services were employee-welfare/personal services and the appellant had not established their use in providing the exported service. It was also submitted that Rs.2,48,860/- related to a period after 31.03.2010 and was therefore not refundable in the claim for January to March 2010. 5. I have carefully considered the records, the rival submissions and the authorities relied upon by the appellant. The following two questions arise for determination: - i. Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid in respect of group insurance/mediclaim policies covering existing and retired employees, relying, inter alia, upon Rule 2(l) and also on the decision in Millipore India Ltd. The Larger Bench in Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. (supra), while specifically considering group medical and accident insurance policies for employees and their family members for the period prior to 01.04.2011, held that such services could fall within the expression "activities relating to business" and did not require proof of an integral connection with the manufacturing process. 8. The lower authorities rejected the Group Insurance component principally on the ground that it was an employee-welfare/personal service and lacked direct or indirect nexus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore distinguishable on facts. The wider principle in Ultratech Cement (supra) does not dispense with proof that the particular service satisfies Rule 2(l). The Club Service component is consequently not established as eligible. 11. The appellant also relied upon Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai, Appeal Nos. ST/86694, ST/86695, ST/86697 & ST/86698/2017, decided on 13.03.2018, to contend that a refund authority could not simply deny credit already availed without the prescribed adjudicatory procedure. That principle does not answer the separate question whether services pertaining to a later period could form part of the refund claim for January to March 2010. 12. The disputed Rs.2,48,860/- admi....