https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378456 Rule 3(4) and Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 allowed credit in the recipient's hands for the amount paid when inputs were cleared as such by an intermediary after reversal of the originally taken credit, so the credit chain remained valid to that extent. Rule 3(6)(a)(i), however, operated as a non obstante restriction on the otherwise available credit under Rule 3(1) where the inputs had been manufactured by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking. The recipient could not claim credit beyond the cap prescribed by that provision, even though the goods were received through an intermediary for further manufacture. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378456 Rule 3(4) and Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 allowed credit in the recipient's hands for the amount paid when inputs were cleared as such by an intermediary after reversal of the originally taken credit, so the credit chain remained valid to that extent. Rule 3(6)(a)(i), however, operated as a non obstante restriction on the otherwise available credit under Rule 3(1) where the inputs had been manufactured by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking. The recipient could not claim credit beyond the cap prescribed by that provision, even though the goods were received through an intermediary for further manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378456