Per S.S. Kang:

The matter has been referred to the Larger Bench for re-consideration of the observations made in para 4 of the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. vs C.C.E., Meerut reported in 1999 (32) RLT 721 (CEGAT).

2. Paragraph 4 of the above mentioned order reads as under :

"I have perused the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions. I find that Rule 57 F specifically permits the despatch of inputs for processing. It also permits extension of time by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector in the event of delay in obtaining the goods. This rule or Rule 57I contains no provision that Modvat Credit will be liable to recovery if the inputs in question did not return to the manufacturer within the period of sixty days or during the extended period as permitted by the Assistant Collector. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the return of the goods. Therefore, recovery of modvat credit ordered under the impugned order has to be held illegal. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief to the appellant and the impugned order is set aside."

3. The Referring Bench is of the view that the above observatio