2004 (10) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... both the sides. 2. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has denied them the credit of Rs. 2,35,008/- on the ground that the inputs which were sent to the job worker were received back after expiry of 180 days. The delay in receipt of the goods after expiry of 180 days is only for 5 to 27 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that Rule 57 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xtended period as the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise may allow in this behalf was substituted with the term within one hundred Eighty days vide Notification No. 15/98-CE (15) dated 2-6-1998 in sub-rule 57F(4) and 57F(11). Therefore, the discretion vested in the officers to extend the time limit by this substitution is taken away and the period of 180 days cannot be extended. However vide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was held that, the fact that 10% of credit availed was reversed while sending the input to the job worker, and the receipt back of the inputs and their use in the manufacture of final products are not disputed. The respondents are entitled to take credit as and when the inputs are received back. 3. In the present case, there is no dispute that the goods were received back in the factory of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X