<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (8) TMI 654 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250704</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Greaves Cotton Ltd., holding that denial of cenvat credit on advertisement charges for Unit-II products by Unit-I was unjustified. The definition of &quot;input services&quot; and the nexus between services and business activities supported the appellant&#039;s position. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of considering the business relationship within the same manufacturer for credit eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 654 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250704</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Greaves Cotton Ltd., holding that denial of cenvat credit on advertisement charges for Unit-II products by Unit-I was unjustified. The definition of &quot;input services&quot; and the nexus between services and business activities supported the appellant&#039;s position. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of considering the business relationship within the same manufacturer for credit eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>