https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342496 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the main appellant, setting aside the denial of credit and penalties imposed by the Revenue. It held that the appellant correctly followed the procedure under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit was not justified as central excise duty was paid at both the rough forgings and machined forgings stages, entitling the appellant to credit. It emphasized that the job worker was not mandated to follow a specific notification for exemption, supporting the appellant's position that credit cannot be denied on duty paid on intermediate products. en-us Tue, 02 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 May 2017 10:15:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342496 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the main appellant, setting aside the denial of credit and penalties imposed by the Revenue. It held that the appellant correctly followed the procedure under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit was not justified as central excise duty was paid at both the rough forgings and machined forgings stages, entitling the appellant to credit. It emphasized that the job worker was not mandated to follow a specific notification for exemption, supporting the appellant's position that credit cannot be denied on duty paid on intermediate products. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342496