S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) THE vires of Rule 3. 11 as contained in central Excise Manual, 2001-02 which is questioned in this writ petition, is in the following terms: "3. 11 Provision has been made for permitting the CENVAT credit when the inputs or capital goods are purchased from the first stage dealer or from the second stage dealer. These dealers should be registered under rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001. The other procedural requirements in respect of first stage dealer and second stage dealer will continue as in the case of modvat rules. " ( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the said administrative instruction is contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions contained in Rule 52aa (5) (c) of the Central Excise Rules 2001. The only question which has been canvassed at the bar is as to whether, having regard to the fact that the said rule was deleted, the respondents could issue the impugned administrative instruction. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the fact the authority deleted the said provision, the impugned administrative instructions could not have been issued. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on p. D. Aggarwal and others v. State of U. P. and others AIR 1987 SC 1676 and Kerala Financial corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1994 sc 2416 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that such a power exists in the appropriate authority, in terms of Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Rule 31 reads as under: "31. Power to issue supplementary instructions: the Board or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, may issue written instructions providing for any incidental or supplemental matters, consistent with the provisions of the act and these rules. " ( 4 ) BY reasons of the afore-mentioned rule, the chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is empowered to issue written instructions by way of incidental or supplemental matters. The instructions as contained in Rule 3. 11 afore-mentioned provides for a Procedure to be complied with by the first stage dealer and second stage dealer. The said administrative instructions, in our considered opinion, does not run counter to the existing rules. The instructions as contained in Rule 3. 11 afore-mentioned provides for a Procedure to be complied with by the first stage dealer and second stage dealer. The said administrative instructions, in our considered opinion, does not run counter to the existing rules. Now a well settled principle of law is that by way of administrative instructions the statutory rules can be supplemented but they cannot be supplanted. Reference in this connection will be made to Sant ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1967 SC 1910 . In P. D. Aggarwal and Others v. State of U. P. and others AIR 1987 SC 1676 whereupon the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon. it has been held as under: "this memorandum is nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by adding something therein as has been observed by this court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of rajasthan (1967) 1 SCR 111; ( AIR 1967 sc 1910 ). " ( 5 ) BY reasons of the administrative order the existing rules have neither been amended nor superseded. In Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1994 SC 2416 , the apex Court has laid down that circulars cannot detract from the provisions of the Act. As indicated above, by reasons of paragraph 3. 11 of the chapter 5 of the Central Excise Manual the Chief commissioner or the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to issue the same,in terms of Rule 31, for the reasons afore-mentioned. There is no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed.