https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106466 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. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:37:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106466 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106466