https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194265 Under the Modvat scheme, an assessee could choose either the route for waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) or clearance on payment of duty under Rule 57F(4), so duty could not be demanded merely because the department preferred a different procedural route. The demand on waste and scrap was therefore unsustainable. Inputs sent to a job worker and returned after the prescribed period still satisfied the substantive receipt-back condition, and the period could be extended by the Assistant Commissioner; mere delay did not by itself create duty liability. The demand for delayed return of inputs was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty did not survive. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 16:09:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194265 Under the Modvat scheme, an assessee could choose either the route for waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) or clearance on payment of duty under Rule 57F(4), so duty could not be demanded merely because the department preferred a different procedural route. The demand on waste and scrap was therefore unsustainable. Inputs sent to a job worker and returned after the prescribed period still satisfied the substantive receipt-back condition, and the period could be extended by the Assistant Commissioner; mere delay did not by itself create duty liability. The demand for delayed return of inputs was therefore unsustainable, and the connected penalty did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194265