<?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>2024 (11) TMI 607 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761621</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chandigarh held that various input services were eligible for CENVAT credit. The tribunal found that mandap keeper and outdoor catering services used for business conferences, training, and dealer meetings were not for personal use of officers. Club memberships for sponsored tournaments and professional activities were deemed business-related. Asset management services were considered integral to business financing activities. The tribunal ruled that disputed services were primarily for business purposes, not personal use, as no evidence proved otherwise. Appeals were partly allowed, with contested demands set aside while uncontested paid amounts were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 607 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761621</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chandigarh held that various input services were eligible for CENVAT credit. The tribunal found that mandap keeper and outdoor catering services used for business conferences, training, and dealer meetings were not for personal use of officers. Club memberships for sponsored tournaments and professional activities were deemed business-related. Asset management services were considered integral to business financing activities. The tribunal ruled that disputed services were primarily for business purposes, not personal use, as no evidence proved otherwise. Appeals were partly allowed, with contested demands set aside while uncontested paid amounts were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>