https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239957 Cenvat credit under Rule 4(5)(a) could not be denied merely because job-worked inputs were returned under the job worker's invoices instead of the original challans, where the invoices carried the challan numbers and quantities and the receipt of processed goods was undisputed. The rule was treated as requiring records that establish return of the goods within the stipulated period, not any prescribed document format. A departmental circular issued under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 was not applied to the later rule. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a prima facie case, pre-deposit was waived, and recovery was stayed pending appeal. en-us Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:23:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239957 Cenvat credit under Rule 4(5)(a) could not be denied merely because job-worked inputs were returned under the job worker's invoices instead of the original challans, where the invoices carried the challan numbers and quantities and the receipt of processed goods was undisputed. The rule was treated as requiring records that establish return of the goods within the stipulated period, not any prescribed document format. A departmental circular issued under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 was not applied to the later rule. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a prima facie case, pre-deposit was waived, and recovery was stayed pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239957