Job-work input returns and extension requests were not to be denied merely because the sixty-day period expired.

Inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 57F(2/3) were discussed in relation to whether delayed return beyond sixty days could defeat the benefit. The commentary applies Tribunal reasoning that, for the relevant period, the sixty-day condition was not treated as a statutory bar in most cases, and extension requests filed after expiry should not be rejected solely on limitation grounds without examining merits. Where actual receipt of the goods back in the factory was established, delay alone could not justify denial of the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 57F(2/3) of the Central Excise Rules could be denied benefit merely because they were received back in the factory after sixty days, and whether applications for extension of time filed after expiry of the sixty-day period were liable to be rejected without considering the merits.

Analysis: The receipt of the inputs back in the factory was not in dispute; the only objection was the delay in their return. The reasoning of the cited Tribunal decisions was applied to hold that, for the relevant period, the sixty-day condition was not a statutory requirement in most cases, and that requests for extension were not to be rejected solely because they were made after the expiry of sixty days. In such circumstances, the delay in return of the inputs could not be used to deny the benefit where actual receipt of the goods was established.

Conclusion: The late receipt of the inputs could not be treated as a ground for denial of benefit. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---