Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Chandigarh) heard the appeal filed by M/s Hero MotoCorp Limited challenging the denial of CENVAT credit on certain input services (Architect & Interior Designers Service, Photography Services, etc.) by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon-I via an order dated 30.12.2014. The Revenue disputed the appellants' eligibility to avail credit of Rs.61,33,540/- for the period 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014. The Bench referred to its earlier ruling (Final Order No.60303-60316/2024 dated 05.06.2024) where it held that credit of the disputed services is available to the appellants. Additionally, the Assistant Commissioner had allowed credit for a subsequent period by order dated 27.05.2023. The Tribunal found no justification to deviate from the earlier decision and noted the Department's own acceptance of credit for a later period. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized consistency in allowing CENVAT credit on input services and rejected Revenue's denial for the disputed period.