https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48892 Where inputs are removed outside the factory for further processing under the Modvat scheme, the special mechanism in Rule 57F governs both removal and the consequences of non-return within the permitted period, so recovery should proceed under Rule 57F(11) rather than the general recovery provision in Rule 57-I(2). The text also states that a request to extend the return period under Rule 57F(4) need not be rejected merely because it was made after sixty days; if the goods were in fact returned and receipt is not disputed, the delayed request may be considered on merits and the short delay may be condoned. On that reasoning, the impugned orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:22:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48892 Where inputs are removed outside the factory for further processing under the Modvat scheme, the special mechanism in Rule 57F governs both removal and the consequences of non-return within the permitted period, so recovery should proceed under Rule 57F(11) rather than the general recovery provision in Rule 57-I(2). The text also states that a request to extend the return period under Rule 57F(4) need not be rejected merely because it was made after sixty days; if the goods were in fact returned and receipt is not disputed, the delayed request may be considered on merits and the short delay may be condoned. On that reasoning, the impugned orders were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48892