S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution a short question arises for our consideration. It is as follows: under Rule 56-A of Central Excise Rules 1944 framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 on the two inputs viz. cement and asbestos raw (fiber) which are utilised by petitioner No. 1 company at its Ahmedabad Office for manufacturing finished excisable goods viz. asbestos cement products. ( 2 ) INTRODUCTORY facts: A few relevant facts leading to these petitions and the controversy raised therein deserve to be noted at the outset. Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the said company. Both these petitioners are common to both the petitions. Petitioner No. 1 company owns a factory at Digvijaygram (Sikka) in Jamnagar district. It is engaged in manufacture and sale of cement. It also owns a factory at Digvijaynagar Ahmedabad for manufacture and sale of asbestos cement products such as sheets corrugated or plain asbestos pressure pipes roofing accessories and couplings etc. Petitioner No. 1 company holds L-4 licence for manufacture of asbestos cement products. Cement and asbestos are raw materials used in the manufacture of asbestos cement products in the factory at Ahmedabad cement clinker in the form of pallets is transported from Sikka factory to the cement grinding that of petitioner No. 1 in Ahmedabad. The clinker is ground into cement primarily for captive consumption viz. manufacture of asbestos pressure pipes and sheets etc. Petitioner No. 1 company pays excise duty on the quantity of cement cleared from the cement grinding unit. ( 3 ) THE other component or raw material used by the petitioner company for manufacture of asbestos cement products is asbestos raw (fibre ). Asbestos raw (fibre) was excisable under T. I. 22f of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act) at the relevant time prior to refusing of the tariff items in 1986. The said raw material is imported from Canada U. S. S. R. Brazil U. S. A. etc. So far as other raw material or input which is utilised by the petitioner company for manufacturing its finished excisable products viz. asbestos cement products is concerned it is cement. The said raw material is imported from Canada U. S. S. R. Brazil U. S. A. etc. So far as other raw material or input which is utilised by the petitioner company for manufacturing its finished excisable products viz. asbestos cement products is concerned it is cement. Cement was at the relevant time excisable under T. I. 23 while the finished excisable products manufactured out of utilisation of the inputs of cement and asbestos raw (fibre) viz. asbestos cement products were excisable under T. I. 23-C as existed at the relevant time. It is therefore obvious that excise duty on such material or component parts viz. cement and asbestos raw (fibre) was payable under different tariff items as compared to the duty that was payable on the finished excisable goods view asbestos cement products. Petitioner-companys contention is that inputs or raw-materials i. e. cement and asbestos raw (fibre) are received into the petitioner-companys factory for the purpose of use in the manufacture of asbestos cement products. That in respect of cement and asbestos raw obtained from outside excise duties were duly paid under the relevant tariff items 23 and 23-F; while in respect of imported asbestos additional duty i. e. countervailing duty equivalent to excise duty was paid. Thus asbestos and cement received in the petitioners factory were duty paid. That the finished excisable product manufactured by the petitioners out of utilisation of these inputs was excisable as seen above under Tariff item 23-C and the finished product was not exempted from excise duty leviable thereon nor was it chargeable to nil rate of duty. ( 4 ) THE petitioners case is that finished products manufactured by the petitioner-company viz. asbestos cement products are notified by the Central Government under rule 56a (1) as one of the specified excisable goods in respect of which proforma credit procedure under rule 56a (2) is available. That asbestos cement products are listed at Serial No. 11 of the list of such classified goods under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a. The petitioners contend that they are therefore entitled to avail of the proforma credit procedure in connection with their finished products as the proforma credit procedure laid down by rule 56 That the petitioners applied for being granted benefit of the aforesaid procedure vide an application dated 4-2-1985 moved before Respondent No. 3 herein who is the competent authority for the purpose. By an order dated 7-2-1985 Respondent No. 3 rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled for availing the proforma credit under rule 56a because the inputs and outputs did not fall under the said Tariff item. The said order is at Annexure A to Special Civil Application No. 2010 of 1985 which is the main petition. The petitioners have challenged the said order at Annexure A and have contended that the third respondent had patently erred in rejecting the application and in refusing the benefit of the proforma credit procedure to the petitioners final products asbestos cement products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) THE following points arise for our consideration: (1) Whether rule 56a (1) procedure is available for specified excisable commodity which is manufactured out of inputs not excisable under the same tariff item of the Central Excise Tariff. (2) If the answer is in the negative whether proviso (ii) of subrule (2) of Rule 56a becomes repugnant to the provisions of rule 56a (1) read with (2 ). ( 6 ) POINT No. 1: Before proceeding to deal with the first point for determination it becomes necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of rule 56a. Before we look at rule 56a in its present form it would be profitable to quickly glance through the previous forms in which it was couched from its inception till it reached its present shape. Rule 56a. of the Rules was enacted amongst others by the rule making authority in exercise of its powers under secs. 6 12 and 37 of the Act. It was originally introduced on 8-12-1962. At that time it read as under:56 Special procedure for movement of duty paid or countervailing duty paid material or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable products; (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Central Govt. 6 12 and 37 of the Act. It was originally introduced on 8-12-1962. At that time it read as under:56 Special procedure for movement of duty paid or countervailing duty paid material or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable products; (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Central Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the excisable goods in respect of which the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) shall apply. (2) The Collector may on application made in this behalf and subject to the condition mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government. permit a manufacturer of any excisable goods specified under sub-rule (1) to receive duty paid material or component parts in his factory for the manufacture of these goods and allow a credit of the duty already paid on such material or component parts under proforma credit account as in form No. 23. ( 7 ) ON 8-1-1963 proviso with clause (a) and (b) it was added to sub rule (2) of rule 56a. The added proviso read as under:provided that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component part used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods unless; (a) duty has been paid for such material or component part under the same item or sub-item and at the same rate as is appropriate to the finished excisable goods or (b) remission or adjustment of duty paid for such material or component part has been specifically sanctioned by Central Government. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER on 26-10-1963 certain marginal changes were made in rule 56a (1) and (2) read with proviso clauses (a) and (b ). ( 8 ) THEREAFTER on 26-10-1963 certain marginal changes were made in rule 56a (1) and (2) read with proviso clauses (a) and (b ). After these changes rule 56a read as under:56 Special procedure for movement of duty paid or countervailing duty paid materials or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable material:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the excisable goods in respect of which the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) shall apply (2) The Collector may on application made in this behalf and subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government permit a manufacturer of any excisable goods specified under sub-rule (1) to receive duty paid material or component parts or finished product (like asbestos cement) in his factory for the manufacture of these goods or for the more convenient distribution of finished product and allow a credit of the duty already paid on such material or component parts or finished product as the case may be: Provided that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component part used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods unless: (a) duty has been paid for such material or component part under the same item or sub-item as the finished excisable goods; or (b) remission or adjustment of duty paid for such material or component part has been specifically sanctioned by the Central Government. ( 9 ) THEREAFTER on 27-12-1968 proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a was recast and it was divided in sub-paras (i) and (ii ). The said recast proviso alongwith rule 56a as substituted for the original rule 56a with effect from 28-12-1968 read as under:56 Special procedure for movement of duty paid materials or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods: (a) Notwithstanding anything entered in these rules the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the excisable goods in respect of which the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) shall apply. (2) The Collector may on application made in this behalf and subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government permit a manufacturer of any excisable goods specified under sub-rule (1) to receive duty paid material or parts or finished product (life asbestos cement) in his factory for the the manufacture of these goods or for the more convenient distribution of finished product and allow a credit of the duty already paid on such material or component parts or finished produce as the case may be: provided that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods: (i) if such finished excisable goods produced by the manufacturer are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty and (ii) unless: (a) duty has been paid for such material or component parts under the same Hem or sub-item as the finished excisable goods or (b) remission or adjustment of duty paid for such material or component parts has been specifically sanctioned by the Central Government; Provided further that if the duty paid on such material or component parts (of which credit has been allowed under this sub-rule) be varied subsequently due to any reason resulting in payment of refund to or recovery of more duty from the manufacturer or importer as the case may be of such material or component parts the credit allowed shall be varied accordingly by adjustment in the credit account maintained under sub rule (3) or rule 9 or rule 178 (1) or if such adjustment be not possible for any reason by cash recovery from or as the case may be refund to the manufacture availing of the procedure contained in this rule. Thereafter rule 56a (2) underwent further modification and ultimately rule 56a (1) and (2) stood in the following form at the relevant time:56 Special procedure for Movement of duty paid materials or components parts for use in the manufacture finished excisable goods :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the excisable goods in respect of which the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) shall apply (2) The Collector may; on application made in this behalf and subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government permit a manufacturer of any excisable goods specified under sub-rule (1) to receive material or component parts or finished product (like asbestos cement) on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under sec. 3 of the Customs Tarriff Act 1975 (51 of 1975) hereinafter referred to as the countervailing duty) has been paid in his factory for the manufacture of these goods or for more convenient distribution of finished product and allow a credit of the duty already paid on such material or component parts or finished product as the case may be; provided that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any Material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods : (i) if such finished excisable goods produced by the manufacturer are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty and (ii) unless : (a)duty has been paid for such material or component parts under the same item as the finished excisable goods or (b) remission or adjustment of duty paid for such material or component parts has been specifically sanctioned by the Central Government;explanation :- Where as a result of an amendment to the first Schedule to the Act the item No. of any material or component parts or finished excisable goods in the manufacture of which such material or component parts are used undergoes a change the credit of duty paid before such amendment on such material or component parts shall be allowed if (i) before such amendment the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material or component parts used in manufacture of such finished excisable goods under this rule or under a notification issued under rule 8 of these rules requiring the procedure set out in this rule to be followed; and (ii) after such amendment such material or component parts and such finished excisable goods fall under the same item and such finished excisable goods are specified under sub-rule (1 ). ( 10 ) A look at various forms in which rule 56a (1) and (2) were couched from time to time shows that during the short interval between 8 and 6-1-1963 there was no proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56 The proviso with clauses (a) and (b) got inserted from 8-1-1963 and with subsequent modifications in remained operative till 27-12-1568. As clauses (a) and (b) of the promise to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a operated at the relevant time during this period even though excisable commodity was specified under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a it would not earn benefit of proforma credit procedure unless inputs utilised for manufacturing finished excisable goods mere excisable under the same tariff items as the finished excisable goods as per clause (a) in absence of application of clauses (b ). It is only on account of recasting of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a with effect from 28-12-1968 that the question which is posed for true consideration has assumed importance. In our view the question has to be answered in the light of the express language of rule 56a (1) and (2) read with the proviso attached to sub-rule (2) as held the field at the relevant time when order Ex. A was passed. It is pertinent to note that the caption of rule 56a in terms refers to the special procedure for Government of duty paid materials or component-parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. Thus the whole scheme of rule 56a contemplates proforma credit procedure to be made available in connection with those finished excisable goods which have been manufactured by utilising duty paid material or competent parts as inputs. It is true as submitted by Mr. Patel for the petitioners that sub-rule (1) of rule 56a refers to specification of excisable goods by the Central Government. However in the context of the caption to rule 56 (A) (1) it must be held that specification of excisable goods would be specification of the finished excisable goods. Once that specification is made under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a procedure of sub-rule (2) would get attracted as provided by sub-rule (1) of rule 56a itself. Once that eventuality takes place the entire machinery of sub-rule (Z) of rule 56a will be made available for the specified excisable goods in question. It is not possible to countenance the situation wherein the proviso to sub-rule (2) can be kept aside while applying the procedure of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a to such specified excisable goods. When the procedure laid down under sub-rule (2) gets attracted to the specified excisable goods the entire sub-rule (2) would get attracted and not sub-rule (2) de hors the proviso. When the procedure laid down under sub-rule (2) gets attracted to the specified excisable goods the entire sub-rule (2) would get attracted and not sub-rule (2) de hors the proviso. On the express language of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a it must be held that proviso which forms a part and parcel of sub-rule (2) also gets attracted in case of specified excisable goods duly notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government under sub-rule (1) of rule 56 In the settings in which proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a has been placed it leaves no room for doubt that any finished excisable goods duly specified under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a will have to follow the procedure of sub-rule (2) laid down in the main part of sub-rule (2) as well as in the proviso. In fairness to Mr. Patel for the petitioners it must be stated that it was not his contention that sub-rule (2) should be read in isolation and de hors the proviso. But his submission was that the proviso contemplates entirely a different situation and operates in a different field. We will deal with his submission a little later For the present it is sufficient to note that for all specified finished excisable roods procedure of sub-rule (2) alongwith the proviso gets attracted. Once the specified finished excisable goods stand the test of the main sub-rule (2) and its proviso then on account of the mandate of sub-rule (2) of rule 46a the concerned Collector on an application by the manufacturer of specified finished excisable goods has to make available the facility of proforma credit to such manufacturer enabling him to receive the material or component parts or finished goods like asbestos cement on which duty of excise or additional duty under sec. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as the case may be have been paid in his factory for the manufacture of these goods or for more convenient distribution of finished goods so received and the Collector has to allow credit of duty already paid on such material or component parts or finished goods to the manufacturer as the case may be. This is the credit rule contemplated by sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. However that rule is fettered or hedged by the proviso which is most relevant for our present purpose. This is the credit rule contemplated by sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. However that rule is fettered or hedged by the proviso which is most relevant for our present purpose. The proviso which enacts no credit rule is in a way an exception to the main provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a or to put it differently it dilutes or whittles down the general sweep and mandate of rule 56a (2 ). ( 11 ) IT is now time for us to have a close look at the proviso alongwith its sub-paras (i) and (ii) as they stood at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed. the proviso mandates that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods in the contingencies contemplated by sub-paras (i) and (ii) of the proviso. It is pertinent to note that the very opening part of the proviso enjoins that no credit of duty will be available in respect of the inputs which are used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods in the contingencies contemplated by the succeeding sub-paras (i) and (ii) of the proviso. Thus the proviso contemplates no credit rule in connection with the finished excisable goods which are made up of material or component parts as are dealt with in the later part of the proviso. It is not possible to agree with the contention of Mr. Patel for the petitioners that the phrase finished excisable goods as employed in the proviso seeks to travel in the field different from the field covered by the phrase specified excisable goods as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 56a. In fact a conjoint reading of the caption of rule 56a with sub-rule (1) clearly indicates that excisable goods that are to be specified under sub-rule (1) will be those excisable goods which are finished excisable goods and which utilise duty paid material or component parts in their manufacturing process. If at all finished excisable goods as contemplated by the proviso would be the species while the excisable goods mentioned in sub-rule (I ) of rule 56a would be the genus and not vice versa as contended by Mr. Patel for the petitioners. If at all finished excisable goods as contemplated by the proviso would be the species while the excisable goods mentioned in sub-rule (I ) of rule 56a would be the genus and not vice versa as contended by Mr. Patel for the petitioners. ( 12 ) NOW coming to the proviso itself it must be observed that the proviso embodying no credit rule contemplates a situation wherein finished excisable goods which are made up of inputs viz. material or component parts are not to earn benefit of the proforma credit in the Contingencies contemplated by the later part of the proviso. The later part of the proviso is made up of two sub-paras (i) and (i ). Consequently both of them have to be read together to find out whether finished excisable goods made up of the material or component parts would remain qualified for the benefit of proforma credit or not. So far as sub-para (i) of the proviso is concerned it in terms provides that if finished excisable goods are wholly exempt from the duty of excise or are chargeable to no duty they will not qualify for the benefit of proforma credit. But sub-para (i) of the proviso only deals with finished excisable goods. It represents only one side of the picture projected by the proviso. The second part of the picture deals with the inputs. As we have seen above the proviso which enacts no credit rule deals with both the inputs and the outputs and their interaction on each other. Scheme of the proviso is an integrated one wherein inputs and the ultimate output resulting therefrom are dealt with together. Sub-para (i) of the proviso deals with outputs. It is not complete without the provision about inputs which is laid down in sub-para (ii ). Consequently both sub-paras (i) and (ii) of the proviso will have to be read together to get a complete picture about the no credit rule as enacted by the proviso. If sub-para (i) is read in isolation as a separate scheme and situation as suggested by Mr. Patel only a truncated picture of the proviso will emerge and the real intent of the rule making authority underlying the proviso will not become highlighted. If sub-para (i) is read in isolation as a separate scheme and situation as suggested by Mr. Patel only a truncated picture of the proviso will emerge and the real intent of the rule making authority underlying the proviso will not become highlighted. Sub-para (i) of the proviso tells us that if specified finished excisable commodity is totally exempted from excise duty and is assessed to nil duty it will not learn the benefit of proforma credit procedure. But that is not all. Further question arises as to how the inputs from which such specified excisable commodity is manufactured are treated by the rule making authority so that the finished excisable commodity produced out of them can earn proforma credit. It is to be kept in view that proforma credit of duty is to be given in connection with the inputs and not the outputs. If the outputs are not specified no further question arises. If they are specified as per rule 56a (1) then the further and more important question will arise as to which inputs can be covered by the scheme of proforma credit procedure. Hence no scheme of proforma credit is complete without a comprehensive interconnected and simultaneous consideration of inputs and outputs. As seen earlier inputs resulting into finished excisable goods are dealt with for the purpose of no credit rule by sub-para (ii) of the proviso to sub-rule (2 ). Between sub-paras (i) and (ii) are sandwitched the words and unless. We agree with Mr. Vakil learned advocate for the respondents that these words and unless would mean and except when. When these two words are so read it becomes at once clear that sub-para (i) and sub-para (ii) of the proviso to rule 56a (2) will have to be read in a conjoint and cumulative manner. They do not reflect two separate situations as submitted by Mr. Patel for the petitioners. But on the contrary they represent a composite well-knit scheme in connection with the no credit rule enacted by the proviso. As discussed earlier the provision about proforma credit on duties paid on inputs while assessing the duties on finished excisable product out of them has of necessity to deal with both the inputs and outputs. Consideration of one without the other will fall short of making the proforma credit procedure complete and workable. As discussed earlier the provision about proforma credit on duties paid on inputs while assessing the duties on finished excisable product out of them has of necessity to deal with both the inputs and outputs. Consideration of one without the other will fall short of making the proforma credit procedure complete and workable. In fact if such a truncated consideration is done the scheme of proforma credit will not click at all. That is the reason why the rule making authority has advisedly employed the words and unless interconnecting sub-paras (i) and (ii) of the proviso which mean except when. When so read it becomes clear that specified finished excisable goods will not be entitled to the benefit of the proforma credit if (a) they are wholly exempt from excise duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty; (b) and if the inputs out of which such finished excisable commodities are manufactured are not excisable to tax under the same tariff item as the finished excisable goods which are manufactured out of them and (c) or ill the alternative kbthe inputs viz. material or component parts out of which such finished excisable goods are manufactured even though they may be excisable under different tariff items as compared to the finished excisable goods which result from them these inputs have not earned any remission or adjustment of a duty paid on them on account of specific sanction by the Central Government. Thus a harmonious reading of two sub-paras of the proviso projects the following picture. The specified finished excisable commodity will not get benefit of the proforma credit if it is wholly exempt from excise duty or chargeable to nil duty. Thus only these finished excisable goods duly specified under sub-rule (1) of rule 56 will get the benefit of proforma credit which are exigible to excise duty. But that is not sufficient. Such finished excisable goods which have to pay excise duty will also have to satisfy further requirement of sub-para (ii) of the proviso before becoming entitled to the benefit of the proforma credit. But that is not sufficient. Such finished excisable goods which have to pay excise duty will also have to satisfy further requirement of sub-para (ii) of the proviso before becoming entitled to the benefit of the proforma credit. The inputs which go to manufacture these specified finished excisable goods which bear excise duty must themselves either be exigible to tax under the same tariff item or alternatively even though these inputs are exigible to tax under the different tariff items then they must be covered by the specific sanction of the Central Government granting remission or adjustment of duty on these inputs. In this connection it is necessary to note that under rule 8 the Central Government has been empowered to grant remission of excise duty on various excisable commodities either wholly or partially. Under rule 192 also such remissions in given circumstances are contemplated when ready with rules. Even otherwise as per the scheme of the Act and the rules it is open to the Central Government in exercise of its powers flowing from the relevant provisions to grant remissions or adjustment of duties if thought fit. If these requirements are satisfied then only the proviso enacting no credit rule would not hit the concerned specified finished excisable goods and such goods only can get the benefit of the procedure of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a for earning proforma credit. Mr. Patels submission that sub-paras (i) and (ii) of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a contemplate different situations cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that if sub-para (i) of the proviso operated in a different field as submitted by Mr. Patel then all finished excisable goods which are specified would earn the proforma credit if they ultimately bear some excise duty. However under the scheme of rule 56a (1) read with sub-rule (2) the very concept of giving proforma credit to finished excisable goods implies that there must be possibility of running account in which excise duty would be chargeable on finished excisable goods and only question of giving credit in that running account in connection with inputs utilised for manufacture of such finished excisable goods arises for consideration. If finished excisable goods are chargeable to nil duty or they are wholly exempt from excise duty no occasion would ever arise for maintaining a running account for such commodity and for giving any credit for the duty on the inputs producing such commodities. It is interesting to note that between 8-1-1963 and 27 rule 56a (2) did not contain any proviso like proviso (i) and there was a categorical mandate in the then existing proviso in the form of clauses (a) and (b) that no specified excisable goods would get the benefit of the procedure of proforma credit unless the inputs and the finished goods fall in the same tariff item in cases not covered by proviso (b ). It is only for the first time that proviso (i) was inserted on 28-12-1968. Thereby what was implicit between 1963 and 1968 was made explicit by the rule making authority. Thus by inserting sub-para (i) to the proviso no new category of situations has been added by the rule making authority. Further requirements of the proviso to clauses (a) or (b) have got to be satisfied by the concerned finished excisable commodity which is specified to remain within the sweep of credit rule envisaged by sub-rule (2) of rule 56 and for not being hit by no credit rule laid down by the proviso. It is necessary to note that requirements of proviso (i) and (ii) have remained all throughout operating from 8-1963 up to date. Only because proviso (i) was added on 28-12-1968 while retaining the then existing requirements in the newly cast sub-para (ii) of the proviso it cannot be said that the aforesaid basic requirements of the rule which had existed all throughout have been given a go by. In this connection it is also profitable to have a look at rule 56a sub-rule (3) (vi) (a) and (b ). Sub-rule 3 (vi) (a) provides that the credit of duty allowed in respect of any material or component parts may be utilised towards payment of duty on any finished excisable goods for the manufacture of which such material or component parts were permitted to be brought into the factory under sub-rule (2) or where such material or component parts are cleared from the factory as such on such material or component parts. Sub-rule (3) (vi) (b) reads as under:no part of such credit shall be utilised save as provided in sub-clause (a) or shall be refunded in cash or by cheque. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates and highlights the salient features of the proforma credit scheme as envisaged by rule 56a itself. It indicates that proforma credit facilities will be available only to these specified finished excisable goods which bear some excise duty. If that is so the provision is of sub-para (i) of proviso to rule 56a (2) must be held to have been made by way of abundant caution and it cannot be held as submitted by Mr. Patel for the petitioners that it contemplates a separate category or fact situation meaning thereby that these finished excisable goods which are wholly exempt from the excise duty which bear nil rate of duty will not get the benefit of proforma credit but these finished excisable goods which bear some excise duty ipso facto become entitled to the proforma credit. In fact those specified finished excisable goods which are wholly exempt from excise duty go out of the scheme of rule 56a altogether and such goods are not contemplated by the proforma credit procedure under rule 56a. Only these excisable goods which bear some excise duty can expect to get the benefit of proforma credit procedure provided they satisfy other requirements of that procedure and these other requirements are laid down by rule 56a (2) read with whole of the proviso to that sub-rule. It is therefore not possible to agree with the contention of Mr. Patel for the petitioners that when the proviso para (i) was added on 26-12-1968 the rule making authority wanted to depart from the basic requirements of the proviso which had existed all throughout and any new class of situation or cases was introduced for the first time by sub-para (i) of the proviso to rule 56a (2) in 1968. In this connection it is also necessary to keep in view the salient feature of the scheme of proforma credit as envisaged by the rule making authority while enacting rule 56a. This scheme postulates for its operation not only taxable finished excisable specified goods but the inputs which themselves have borne the excise duty and which are utilised in manufacture of specified finished excisable commodities. This scheme postulates for its operation not only taxable finished excisable specified goods but the inputs which themselves have borne the excise duty and which are utilised in manufacture of specified finished excisable commodities. It is axiomatic to say that when the finished specified excisable commodity is exigible to tax under a given tariff item if the inputs which have been utilised for its manufacture are also exigible to excise duty under the same tariff item the manufacturer of such manufactured central excise commodity would get exposed to the burden of double taxation. When he either manufactures inputs or raw material in his own factory for the purpose of utilising them for the manufacture of finished specified products or even if purchases such inputs and raw materials from outside when these raw materials bear excise duty such manufacturer has to bear the burden of this duty because the duty paid inputs which he might have purchased from outside or inputs which he may have manufactured which in its turn will attract excise duty would add to his cost of production. When these inputs are exigible to tax under the same tariff item and when they are utilised in the manufacture of finished excisable commodity viz. outputs which are also exigible to excise duty under the same tariff item the manufacturer has to bear double burden of excise duty under the same tariff item. The duty paid inputs utilised in manufacture of the finished excisable commodity would swell the price of the finished manufactured articles at the factory gate and this price at the factory gate would attract larger excise duty under the very same tariff item so far as finished excisable specified commodity is concerned. That burden also will in the first instance fall on the manufacturer. With a view to avoiding such situation and possibility of double taxation for the same excisable commodity under the very same tariff item that the rule making authority has envisaged the scheme of proforma credit under rule 56a as that suitable credit can be given for the inputs viz. the raw materials insofar as they attract duty under the same tariff item as the finished excisable commodity which is manufactured out of them. This question would not arise if the inputs are exigible to excise duty under tariff item different from the tariff item in which the final specified excisable commodity viz. the raw materials insofar as they attract duty under the same tariff item as the finished excisable commodity which is manufactured out of them. This question would not arise if the inputs are exigible to excise duty under tariff item different from the tariff item in which the final specified excisable commodity viz. outputs fall. This is the reason why the rule making authority had to enact the proviso to rule 56a (2) bringing out the aforesaid scheme of proforma credit in its held relief. ( 13 ) IT cannot therefore be urged that the proviso to the effect that specified finished excisable commodity will not be entitled to the procedure of proforma credit if the inputs out of which it is manufactured are not subject to excise duty under the same tariff item is in any way foreign to the scope of rule 56a (1) read with sub-rule (2 ). On the contrary it is an essential part and parcel of the said provisions. It has also to be kept in view that the intention of the rule making authority gets further highlighted when we look at sub-clause (b) of para (ii) of the proviso to rule 56a (2 ). If the material or component parts which are inputs are not exigible to excise duty under the same tariff item as the specified product manufactured out of them then in that case unless excise duty payable on such inputs viz. material and component parts are specifically remitted or permitted to be adjusted by clear cut sanction from the Central Government finished excisable goods even though specified would not be entitled to earn the benefit of proforma credit procedure. material and component parts are specifically remitted or permitted to be adjusted by clear cut sanction from the Central Government finished excisable goods even though specified would not be entitled to earn the benefit of proforma credit procedure. It is pertinent to note that the same Central Government which is entitled to specify finished excisable goods as per rule 56a (1) for enabling them to earn the benefit of procedure of proforma credit can as contemplated under proviso para (ii) (b) be an authority which can sanction remission or adjustment of duty on material or component parts which would otherwise be payable on them under different tariff items and if specifying authority specifically sanctions such remission or adjustment of duty on such inputs even though they may be excisable under different tariff items as compared to the finished excisable commodity manufactured out of them then of course the procedure of proforma credit will be available to such finished excisable goods despite the fact that inputs are not taxable under the same tariff items. Thus the entire scheme of proforma credit procedure and the benefit available to specified excisable goods mentioned therein is a well-knit and composite scheme as reflected by rule 56a (1) (2) read with the proviso with both its sub-paras (i) and (ii ). No part thereof is redundant and all these provisions operate in the same field and not in separate water tight compartments or fields nor would they reflect different fact situations as tried to be suggested by Mr. Patel for the petitioners If Mr. Patels contention is accepted the very scheme of the proforma credit as envisaged by rule 56a (1) and (2) by the rule making authority would get frustrated and would become lopsided. It is therefore not possible to agree with Mr. Patel when he contends that the scheme underlying sub-rule (1) and (2) of rule 56a is a different or separate one as compared to the scheme projected by the proviso through both its sub-paras (i) and (ii ). ( 14 ) WE may now turn to the next contention of Mr. Patel to the effect that if the proviso to rule 56a (2) is read in the light in which Mr. Vakil for the respondents wanted us to read then in that case the procedure laid down by rule 56a (1) would be rendered otiose. Mr. ( 14 ) WE may now turn to the next contention of Mr. Patel to the effect that if the proviso to rule 56a (2) is read in the light in which Mr. Vakil for the respondents wanted us to read then in that case the procedure laid down by rule 56a (1) would be rendered otiose. Mr. Patel submitted that the Central Government in exercise of its powers under rule 56a (1) has specified number of excisable goods which are entitled to the benefit of proforma credit as envisaged by sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. That many of these specified excisable goods may be manufactured out of inputs which may not be taxable under the same tariff item as the finished excisable goods which are manufactured out of them. That if such finished excisable goods are not to earn the benefit of the procedure of proforma credit under rule 56a (1) then where is the need to specify them for the benefit under rule 56a (1) and it would be an exercise in futility on the part of the Central Government to specify such excisable goods for earning the benefit of the procedure of proforma credit as in any case they are not to be given that benefit in view of the language of the proviso sub-para (ii) (a) as the inputs out of which these specified excisable goods are manufactured are not exigible to tax under the same tariff item. In short Mr. Patel contended that rigid insistence on this aspect of this matter would render the entire exercise under rule 56a (1) an exercise in futility and totally meaningless so far as such excisable finished commodities are concerned. In our view this contention of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly the contention ignores the thrust of proviso sub-para (ii) (b) which provided that even in cases where specified excisable goods are manufactured out of the material or component parts which may not be taxable under the same tariff item even then if the Central Government has specifically sanctioned remission or adjustment of duty paid on them manufacturer of such specified excisable goods can legitimately claim benefit of the procedure of proforma credit as per rule 56a (2 ). As we have already seen earlier proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a when read in a conjoint manner along with its parts and sub-parts the intention of the rule making authority becomes at once clear that all excisable specified goods which are liable to pay excise duty can get the benefit of proforma credit procedure provided either (a) inputs out of which they are prepared or manufactured have borne the excise duty under the same tariff item under which finished excisable goods are excisable or (b) alternatively if inputs out of which such duty paid finished specified excisable goods are manufactured have earned the benefit of remission or adjustment of duty paid on them under specific sanction by the Central Government. Thus in both these types of cases no credit rule as enacted by the proviso will be out of way and the main provisions of rule 56a (1) and (2) will operate in full swing without being truncated in any manner. If however any of these two situations does not exist then of course specified duty paid excisable goods will not earn the benefit of the proforma credit procedure. It is therefore not possible to agree with Mr. Patel that when the Central Government specifies finished excisable goods under rule 56a (1) merely because their inputs are exigible to central excise duty under different tariff items the exercise would be in futility. It is possible that the same Central Government which specifies such excisable commodity for the benefit of rule 56a (1) read with (2) can in its wisdom by passing a specific sanction order remit or adjust the duty payable on the material or component parts which are the inputs for the specified excisable goods despite these inputs being exigible to excise duty under different tariff items and once that happens specification directed by the Central Government of such excisable goods under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a would remain fully operative and would not become otiose as suggested by Mr. Patel. ( 15 ) THE second reason why Mr. Patels aforesaid contention cannot be accepted is to the effect that enactment of excise tariff in the schedule to the Act and its modifications from time to time is in the domain of the Parliament. That is entirely a different authority as compared to the delegated authority viz. Patel. ( 15 ) THE second reason why Mr. Patels aforesaid contention cannot be accepted is to the effect that enactment of excise tariff in the schedule to the Act and its modifications from time to time is in the domain of the Parliament. That is entirely a different authority as compared to the delegated authority viz. the Central Government which acts in exercise of its powers under rule 56a as delegate of the rule making authority. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under rule 56 may specify excisable goods which at a given point of time may be manufactured out of the inputs that may not be taxable under the same tariff item as the finished excisable goods manufactured out of them. But even after some time the very inputs on account of modification of the excise Tariff and the schedule thereof by the Parliament may be brought within the same tariff item or the finished excisable goods themselves may be brought in the same tariff item under which the inputs are taxable. That power of the Parliament is a plenary power which is not touched and cannot be touched by the rule making authority which enacted rule 56a (1 ). Consequently once the Central Government in exercise of its pouters under rule 56ail) specifies excisable goods if not today then even tomorrow when the central excise tariff schedule gets modified the concerned specified excisable commodity may start earning benefit of rule 56a (1 ). The Central Government at the time of specification of excisable goods under rule 56a (1) cannot naturally visualise all future changes in the central excise tariff schedule to be made by the Parliament from time to time according to the exigencies of situations. Under these circumstances if the Central Government in its wisdom specifies excisable goods at a given point of time for the benefit of procedure of rule 56 if some of them are not entitled to get benefit on account of the fact that they did not meet with the requirements of proviso (ii) (a) at a given point of time it is not as if in future they will not start earning the benefit once by reshuffling of the central excise tariff schedule by the Parliament the inputs and outputs are brought on par and are covered for the purpose of central excise liability by the same tariff item. Such future contingencies cannot be ruled out and that is the additional reason why specification made of certain excisable goods in anticipation of future changes in the tariff schedule by the Parliament cannot be considered to be an exercise in futility. Such eventuality is not only open but it is clearly visualised by the rule making authority which has enacted Explanation to rule 56a (2) which reads as under:where as a result of an amendment to the first Schedule to the Act the item No. of any material or component parts or finished excisable goods in the manufacture of which such material or component parts are used undergoes a change the credit of duty paid before such amendment on such material or component parts shall be allowed if (I) before such amendment the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material or component parts used in the manufacture of such finished excisable goods under this rule or under a notification issued under rule 8 of these rules requiring the procedure set out in this rule to be followed; and (II) after such amendment such material or component parts and such finished excisable goods are specified under sub-rule (1 ). Another relevant provision which is also required to be noted in this connection 2s found in rule 56a (2b) along with its proviso. This provision reads as under: where a manufacturer was not in a position to make the application under sub- rule (2) on the date of the notification issued under sub-rule (1) or rule 8 and has made such application subsequently the Collector may for reasons to be recorded in writing condone the delay in filing of such application and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the material or component parts even though the procedural requirements laid down under this rule have not been complied with. PROVIDED that such permission may be granted by the Collector only when he is satisfied that the (a) manufacturer could not make the application earlier due to (i) late communication of such notification or (ii) change in assessment of raw material or component parts or finished goods from a particular item No in the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 2944 (I of 1941) to another item No. in the said schedule. The aforesaid provisions made by the rule making authority in rule 56 itself clearly indicate the intention of the rule making authority that there is possibility on account of supervening events beyond the control of the Central Government that the inputs and outputs resulting in specified excisable goods may get their excise duty liability changed from time to time by reshuffling of the tariff schedule by the Parliament and that a manufacturer of specified excisable commodity who may not be entitled at a givers point of time to apply for the benefit of proforma credit procedure may become entitled later on because of change in tariff items and in that eventuality he can apply for grant of such benefit of the procedure and the concerned Collector can condone delay in filing such applications. This is the additional reason why the contention of Mr. Patel that specification under rule 56a (1) will get otiose if the interpretation canvassed by the respondents is accepted cannot be countenanced. ( 16 ) MR. Patels next contention in this connection was that once the Central Government specifies excisable goods for the purpose of benefit of rule 56a as per sub-rule (1) thereof because of the mandate of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a the Collector has on an application made in this behalf to make available the benefit of the proforma credit procedure to such specified commodity subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions from time to time prescribed by the Central Government. He submitted that provisions of proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a do not lay down any condition. However conditions are laid down only by sub-rule (3) and consequently the fetters imposed by the proviso to sub-rule (2) cannot be projected in the working of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. It is not possible to agree with this contention for the obvious reason that the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) are all procedural conditions indicating how a manufacturer of specified excisable goods can apply for being given the benefit of proforma credit. But as far as the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a is concerned it enacts substantive no credit rule and cuts across the otherwise general sweep of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. But as far as the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a is concerned it enacts substantive no credit rule and cuts across the otherwise general sweep of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. Consequently even though the provision laid down by the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a may not be imposing any procedural conditions as these provisions impose substantive fetters on the right to earn benefit of proforma credit procedure qua any excisable specified commodity these fetters enacted by the rule making authority in its wisdom cannot be bye-passed or ignored and as we have seen earlier but for these fetters the scheme of proforma credit procedure would be denuded of its real content and substance. This is the full and complete scheme of proforma credit as envisaged by the rule making authority as per rule 56a (1) read with sub-rule (2) and the proviso with both of its sub-parts. For earning this benefit all the aforesaid requirements have to be specially followed by the concerned excisable specified goods. If these requirements are not fully met the benefit of proforma credit will stand denied to such specified excisable goods and they will remain outside the beneficial sweep of rule 56a (1) despite their specification under rule 56a (1 ). It is therefore not possible to agree with the present submission of Mr. Patel. ( 17 ) MR. patel them invited our attention to a decision rendered by the Collector of Central Excise Calcutta reported in 1977 Excise Law Times (J-34) wherein the said officer has taken the view on the introduction of rule 56a (1) (2) read with the proviso that because sub-rule (1) of rule 56a starts with non-obstante clause to the effect Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules what is mentioned in the proviso and sub-proviso (ii) (a) is rendered ineffective. It is not possible to agree with the aforesaid view of the officer concerned. The non-obstante clause with which rule 56a (1) starts only indicates that whatever might have contained in any other rules rule 56a would separate of its own Moment that result is achieved full effect has to be given to what is stated in rule 56. A (1) namely that the concerned specified excisable goods would be entitled to the proforma credit procedure laid down by sub-rule (2 ). Consequently the whole of sub-- rule (2) gets attracted vis-a-vis such excisable goods. A (1) namely that the concerned specified excisable goods would be entitled to the proforma credit procedure laid down by sub-rule (2 ). Consequently the whole of sub-- rule (2) gets attracted vis-a-vis such excisable goods. Once the whole procedure of sub-rule (2) gets attracted it brings in its wake not only sub-rule (2) first part but also the proviso attached to sub-rule (2) which travels alongwith sub-rule (2) first part and gets attached to the specified excisable goods. It is not as if that the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) which is made applicable to specified excisable goods by virtue of rule 56a (1) has to be split up in two parts and only first part of sub-rule (2) viz. its main part would get attracted to the specified excisable goods and not the second part of sub-rule (2) which is made up of the proviso with both of its sub-paras (i) and (ii ). Either sub-rule (2) applies as a whole or does not apply at all. If excisable commodity is specified under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a the very mandate of sub-rule (1) attracts the entire procedure of sub-rule (2) in connection with such specified excisable goods and not only a part of sub-rule (2) as tried to by suggested by Mr. Patel. Consequently the decision of the Collector of Central Excise Calcutta relied upon by Mr. Patel cannot be accepted as correct. It flies in the face of the entire scheme of rule 56a (1) and (2) as observed by us earlier. ( 18 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that specified excisable commodity which is excisable under the Act will be entitled to earn the benefit of procedure of proforma credit envisaged by rule 56 provided the inputs from which it is manufactured viz. the material or component parts are themselves taxable under the same tariff item except in contingencies provided by the proviso (ii) (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. The first point raised for our consideration therefore has to be answered against the petitioners. ( 19 ) POINT No. 2 :- That takes us to the consideration of point No 2. So far as this point is concerned the contention of Mr. Patel has to be stated to be rejected. Mr. The first point raised for our consideration therefore has to be answered against the petitioners. ( 19 ) POINT No. 2 :- That takes us to the consideration of point No 2. So far as this point is concerned the contention of Mr. Patel has to be stated to be rejected. Mr. Patel submitted that if his contention on the first point is not accepted it would result into a situation in which the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a would become repugnant to rule 56a (1) and (2) It is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Patel for the obvious reason as discussed earlier that rule 56a (1) itself brings in its wake the entire procedure and machinery of sub-rule (2 ). It is not as if sub-rule (1) of rule 56a stands in isolation. Once excisable goods are specified under sub-rule (1) of rule 56a the entire procedure of sub-rule (2) gets attracted to such specified excisable goods Once that happens the proviso which is part and parcel of sub-rule (2) also gets attracted to the specified excisable goods by the very thurst of rule 56a (1) itself. It is not as if rule 56a (1) provides for an independent contingency or carves out an independent water tight field for itself which is sought to be diluted or whittled down or truncated by the thurst of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. Only in such a contingency it can be urged with any emphasis that proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56a would cut across the field occupied by sub-rule (1) of rule 56a or for that matter main part of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a. In fact the proviso itself gets projected into the operation of sub-rule (2) of rule 56a by the very mandate of sub-rule (1) and consequently instead of being repugnant to rule 56 (1) or main part of sub-rule (2) it becomes a part and parcel of the entire well knit composite scheme of rule 56a and consequently all these parts of rule 56a can harmoniously coexist and there would never arise any occasion for repugnance between them as tried to be suggested by Mr. Patel. We have already discussed earlier how all these provisions can coexist and they do coexist and do operate on the very same field. Consequently the alternative contention of Mr. Patel. We have already discussed earlier how all these provisions can coexist and they do coexist and do operate on the very same field. Consequently the alternative contention of Mr. Patel which has given arise to point No. 2 also has to be rejected as being totally devoid of any substance. (The rest of the judgment is not material for the reports.) rule discharged. .