https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361800 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment focused on the alleged violation of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the reversal of credit on inputs sent for job work. It clarified the distinction between rules governing the removal of inputs 'as such' and removal and return of goods under Rule 4(5)(a). Emphasizing revenue neutrality and procedural compliance, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant due to the absence of revenue implications and failure to establish any violation involving revenue. en-us Fri, 09 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361800 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment focused on the alleged violation of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the reversal of credit on inputs sent for job work. It clarified the distinction between rules governing the removal of inputs 'as such' and removal and return of goods under Rule 4(5)(a). Emphasizing revenue neutrality and procedural compliance, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant due to the absence of revenue implications and failure to establish any violation involving revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361800