https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335743 Cenvat credit was not wrongly denied where inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 4(5)(a) were used in manufacture of a trolley sub-assembly and duty was paid on the full value of the final product, including those inputs. Taking credit again on the duty-paid assembly was not a second availment on the same inputs, because the credit related to the final product received after duty discharge. Any procedural departure from the ideal route under Rule 3(5) did not justify recovery. The demand for alleged double credit was therefore not sustainable. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335743 Cenvat credit was not wrongly denied where inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 4(5)(a) were used in manufacture of a trolley sub-assembly and duty was paid on the full value of the final product, including those inputs. Taking credit again on the duty-paid assembly was not a second availment on the same inputs, because the credit related to the final product received after duty discharge. Any procedural departure from the ideal route under Rule 3(5) did not justify recovery. The demand for alleged double credit was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335743