https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118014 Credit could not be denied merely because goods sent to a job worker were returned after 60 days and the request for extension was not filed before that period expired. Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed return of goods within 60 days or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner permitted, and it did not require the extension application to be made before expiry of 60 days. As the inputs had in fact been received back, the timing objection had no substantive basis and denial of credit was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:10:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118014 Credit could not be denied merely because goods sent to a job worker were returned after 60 days and the request for extension was not filed before that period expired. Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed return of goods within 60 days or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner permitted, and it did not require the extension application to be made before expiry of 60 days. As the inputs had in fact been received back, the timing objection had no substantive basis and denial of credit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118014