Job-work credit cannot be denied for delayed return when inputs are received back in full under Rule 57F

Rule 57F must be read harmoniously in job-work cases: where inputs sent out are received back in full, the provision governing non-receipt within the prescribed period does not apply merely because the return was delayed. CESTAT held that rule 57F(11) could not be used to deny credit or impose penalty on those facts, because rule 57F(6) governed full receipt back of the inputs. The credit was therefore admissible and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit taken after reversal on inputs sent for job work could be retained when the inputs were received back in full beyond the period mentioned in rule 57F, and whether rule 57F(11) could be invoked to deny the credit and penalty.

Analysis: The substituted wording of rule 57F(4) and rule 57F(11) removed the earlier discretion to extend the period beyond 180 days, but the Tribunal read rule 57F(6), rule 57F(7) and rule 57F(11) together. On that construction, rule 57F(11) applies where inputs or partially processed inputs are not received back within the prescribed period, whereas rule 57F(6) governs cases where the inputs are actually received back in full. Since the factual record showed receipt back in full, the delayed return by itself did not justify denial of credit. The demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible to the assessee and the demand and penalty were not payable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order against the assessee was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where inputs sent for job work are received back in full, the credit mechanism must be read harmoniously so that the provision dealing with non-receipt within time does not apply merely because the return was delayed.

---