https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780536 CESTAT held that Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR 2004 governs job-work removals and not Rule 3(5); the appellant validly availed CENVAT credit on inputs before sending them to the job-worker and again on receipt after the job-worker paid duty on intermediate goods, these being distinct taxable events. The Revenue failed to prove identical duty was claimed twice. Impugned orders demanding reversal, interest and penalties were set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2025 08:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780536 CESTAT held that Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR 2004 governs job-work removals and not Rule 3(5); the appellant validly availed CENVAT credit on inputs before sending them to the job-worker and again on receipt after the job-worker paid duty on intermediate goods, these being distinct taxable events. The Revenue failed to prove identical duty was claimed twice. Impugned orders demanding reversal, interest and penalties were set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780536