JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The sole relief claimed by the petitioner is the grant of credit in respect of the duty paid on glass bottles lying in stock on 1-3-1987 or brought in thereafter and used in the manufacture of aerated water and for utilizing the credit granted to pay the duty payable on the final product of aerated water. The alternate relief originally claimed in the writ petition for getting refund of the credit has not been pressed by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's case is based upon Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the notifications of the Central Government of 1-3-1987 (Annexure-2), 1-10-1987 (Annexure-12) and 25-7-1991 (filed in Court on 22-1-1992). Rule 57A introduced a scheme popularly known as Modvat, which broadly speaking, contemplates that where some goods are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and excise duty or additional duty u/s 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has been paid on such goods, described as inputs, the duty paid on such inputs would be allowed to be credited and that the credit so allowed would be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final products, subject to the provisions of the rule and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified. The rule further contemplates the Central Government to publish a notification specifying the final products in respect of which the benefit would be available and specifying the duty of excise or additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act on the inputs to be known as the specified duty. The notification is thus to specify three things, the final products, the specified duty and the inputs in respect of which the specified duty is to have been paid. 3. It is Mr. Patnaik's contention that the notification under Rule 57A was published on 1-3-86 annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. However that notification did not notify aerated water as one of the final products to which the benefit was allowable. By notification as per Annexure-2 dated 1-3-87 the benefit was extended to aerated water as a final product and the corresponding inputs were also notified in the same notification. However that notification did not notify aerated water as one of the final products to which the benefit was allowable. By notification as per Annexure-2 dated 1-3-87 the benefit was extended to aerated water as a final product and the corresponding inputs were also notified in the same notification. Between March 1987 to July 1987 there were various correspondences between the petitioner and the opposite parties as regards whether glass bottles used for bottling aerated water would constitute inputs for the purpose of Modvat credit. On 17-7-87 vide Annexure-7 clarification was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs that Modvat credit would be available on glass bottles only once when such bottles come to the factory of the manufacturer for the first time under the cover of excise duty gate pass evidencing payment of appropriate excise duty. The petitioner addressed a letter as per Annexure-8 on 17-8-87 to the Collector of Central Excise and Customs requesting instruction to the field officers that Modvat credit was available to the petitioner on the clarification issued by the Board. On 15-9-87 the petitioner issued letter to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Cuttack Division lodging claim on Modvat credit for an amount of Rs. 1,73,008.59 vide Annexure-A and Rs. 41,317.77 vide Annexure A/1 to that letter. The gate pass evidencing payment of duty are Annexure-10 series to the case. The petitioner has also filed the invoices of the suppliers of the bottles indicating payment of excise duty on bottles, as Annexure-11 series. The facility of availing Modvat credit was withdrawn with effect from 1-10-87 vide Annexure-12. Thereafter on 14-1-1988 the Assistant Collector rejected the Modvat credit facility to the petitioner on the ground that as the facility had already been withdrawn with affect from 1-10-87, no credit was allowable to the petitioner as the credit cannot be adjusted towards payment of Central Excise duty any further. The order is Annexure-13. Thereafter on 25-7-91 the facility was again reintroduced. The petitioner has also filed Annexure-15 to show that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise of Calcutta-'D' Division, Calcutta had allowed credit on glass bottles. It is for such reason that Mr. The order is Annexure-13. Thereafter on 25-7-91 the facility was again reintroduced. The petitioner has also filed Annexure-15 to show that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise of Calcutta-'D' Division, Calcutta had allowed credit on glass bottles. It is for such reason that Mr. Patnaik argues that merely because the facility was withdrawn on 1-10-87, the credit facility which was otherwise available to him during the period it was existent cannot be denied to him, and that in any case the credit should be allowed to him in view of reintroduction of the facility on 25-7-1991. 4. Contesting the case, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, Central Government that the petitioner cannot be allowed to derive a double benefit. It is his case that the petitioner had declared itself a small scale industrial undertaking and has availed of the exemption allowed under GE 5.1 by declaring that its first clearance of the specified goods had not exceeded the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs so as to make itself eligible for exemption allowed under the notification. If the cost of the bottles would have been added, the aggregate value would have exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs and the petitioner would not be entitled to earn any exemption. The notification GE 5.1 was one made by the Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules providing exemptions of duty on excisable goods specified in the an-nexure to the notification and falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, referred to in the notification as "specified goods", and cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st of April in any financial year. The notification exempted, inter alia, in a case where the Modvat credit had been availed of, for exemption of duty 10% ad valorem of the duty of excise leviable on the specified goods on their first clearance up to the aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs. 5. Such submission of the learned Standing Counsel is on the face of it not acceptable. The exemption is given under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 30 lakhs. 5. Such submission of the learned Standing Counsel is on the face of it not acceptable. The exemption is given under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Explanation-I to the second proviso to Para-7 of the exemption notification itself says that for the purpose of the notification the expression "value" means either the value as determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') or, as the case may be, according to the tariff values fixed or altered u/s 3 of the said Act. Thus, for determining the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs, the mode of valuation is specified in Explanation-I, i.e. the valuation to be made in accordance with Section 4. As a matter of fact, it is the conceded case of the Standing Counsel that the mode of valuation under GE 5.1 is u/s 4 of the Act. That section is the provision re- garding valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging of duty of excise and is applicable where the duty is chargeable with reference to value instead of charging of duty on specific basis. Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides that "value" in relation to any excisable goods would not include the cost of packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the as-sessee. It is Mr. Patnaik's contention that since glass bottles used for sale of aerated water are packing of durable nature and are returnable to the assessee, the valuation would not include the cost of the bottles. As the exemption notification itself directed that the valuation is to be made in accordance with Section 4, the petitioner rightfully did not include the value of the glass bottles while showing the aggregate value. The submission is correct. The exemption available under Rule 8(1) as per the notification is different from the benefit extended under Rule 57A which is the facility for availing credit. If the legislature and the Central Government allow two benefits to the as-sessee and direct that for the purpose of one, the valuation is to be made in a particular manner, it cannot be said that the assessee is taking a double benefit thereby. If the legislature and the Central Government allow two benefits to the as-sessee and direct that for the purpose of one, the valuation is to be made in a particular manner, it cannot be said that the assessee is taking a double benefit thereby. It is the next submission of the Standing Counsel that the benefit of Rule 57A is not available to the petitioner since the explanation to the rule in Sub-clause (b)(iii) thereof provides that for the purpose of the rule, "inputs" would not include packaging materials the cost of which is not included or had not been included during the preceding financial year in the assessable value of the final products u/s 4 of the Act. This argument is equally not tenable as the assessable value, so far as aerated water is concerned, is not made in accordance with Section 4 of the Act at all. Aerated water is charged with excise duty not on value basis but on specified basis as is given in the tariff Schedule-22 of the Excise Tariff under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, calculated on the basis of each glass bottle containing specified quantity of aerated water or less. As a matter of fact, the Central Board itself adopted the same view as is explicit in Annexure-7. 6. The next submission of the Standing Counsel is that even though aerated water is charged with excise duty on specified basis, yet so far as small scale industries which have availed the general exemption under notification GE 5.1 are concerned, the duty paid by them becomes a value-based duty and different from specified duty. This argument proceeds on the footing that as exemption is granted 10% ad valorem of duty payable on the specified goods, it becomes a value based tariff. The argument is wholly untenable as exemption of 10% ad valorem duty payable has nothing to do with imposition of duty on value basis. It merely stipulates that whatever is the duty calculated on the specified basis, such duty is to be paid 10% less if the exemption applies. 7. The last submission of the Standing Counsel is that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not allowable in any case. It merely stipulates that whatever is the duty calculated on the specified basis, such duty is to be paid 10% less if the exemption applies. 7. The last submission of the Standing Counsel is that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not allowable in any case. It is his submission that on the first hand there is no provision for any refund and on the other hand so far as duty paid on the inputs during the period from 1-3-87 to 1-10-87 is concerned, no credit facility would be available after 1-10-87 once the notification was withdrawn. 8. It has been made clear by Mr. Patnaik that the petitioner does not press for the relief of refund of the duty for which it was entitled to be al- lowed credit. He confines the relief claimed by the petitioner to adjustment of the credit against the duty payable by it for the final products. In the petitioner's letter of 15-9-1987 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Cuttack Division, Cuttack, Annexure-9 to the writ petition it had laid claim for availing the Modvat facilities pleading that it had paid the duty on imports of Rs. 2,14,326.31 as per Annexures-A and A/1 to that letter on the glass bottles lying in stock on 1-3-1987 or received thereafter. It is the petitioner's case that it had used such glass bottles in the manufacture of the aerated water during the period 1-3-1987 to 1-10-1987 and hence is entitled to adjust the credit for payment of duty for the final products manufactured within that period. That being the relief claimed by the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the Modvat facilities can be . claimed even in respect to final products manufactured after withdrawal of the notification on 1-10-1987. But on the analysis as aforesaid the petitioner's right to get the credit utilised for payment of the duty in respect of the final products manufactured within 1-3-87 to 1-10-87 cannot be denied and hence the order of the Assistant Collector in Annexure-13 refusing to allow the same must necessarily be set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The im pugned order in Annexure-13 is set aside and the opposite parties are di rected to allow the petitioner to utilise the credit in respect of the duty paid for the glass bottles lying in stock as on 1-3-1987 or thereafter till 1-10-1987 to be utilised for payment of duty on the final products manufactured within 1- 10-1987. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-. J.M. Mohapatra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed