ORDER 1. These appeals are against the judgments of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "CEGAT") dated 9-8-2000 and 3-8-2001. The question involved is with regard to interpretation of Rule 57F(17) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules") which was introduced by an amendment, with effect from 1-3-1997. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The appellants are manufacturers of black-and-white picture tubes which they export under a bond. For the manufacturing of black-and-white picture tubes, they use inputs on which duty is paid by them. Under the MODVAT Scheme, which was then in existence, they were entitled to credit for the duty paid against duty payable on the final product which is used for home consumption or on final product which is exported after payment of duty or where such adjustment is not possible to a refund of the duty. 3. It is an admitted position that the appellants had paid duty on the imports. It is admitted that the appellants had credit available to them. In Civil Appeal No. 6493 of 2000, they exported under bond in January and February 1997. In Civil Appeal No. 8692 of 2001 they exported under bond between October to December 1996. As the export was under a bond, under the Rules prevailing up to February 1997, the appellants would have been entitled to a refund of duty because no adjustment was possible. However, as stated above, with effect from 1-3-1997, the Rule was amended. 4. In Civil Appeal No. 8692 of 2001 they exported under bond between October to December 1996. As the export was under a bond, under the Rules prevailing up to February 1997, the appellants would have been entitled to a refund of duty because no adjustment was possible. However, as stated above, with effect from 1-3-1997, the Rule was amended. 4. The amended Rule 57-F(17) reads as follows: "57-F. (17) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (12) or Rule 57-A, any credit of specified duty lying unutilised,- (a) on the sixteenth day of March, 1995, with the manufacturer of tractors falling under Heading 87.01 or motor vehicles falling under Headings 87.02 and 87.04 or chassis of such tractors or such motor vehicles falling under Heading 87.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utili sed for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contained in finished products lying in stock on the sixteenth day of March, 1995; (b) on the first day of March, 1997, with the manufacturer of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 28 or 29 and with the manufacturers of black-and-white picture tubes falling under Sub-Heading 8540.12 shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utili sed for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contained in finished products lying in stock on the first day of March, 1997." 5. The appellants filed claims for refund on 7-4-1997 and 11-7-1997. Those claims for refund were rejected on the ground that under the amended sub-rule (17) credit had lapsed and that the same could not be allowed. This view prevailed with CEGAT which has, by the impugned orders, dismissed their appeals. 6. Before us, reliance is placed upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of Indian. In that case the validity of sub-rule (4-A) was challenged. This view prevailed with CEGAT which has, by the impugned orders, dismissed their appeals. 6. Before us, reliance is placed upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of Indian. In that case the validity of sub-rule (4-A) was challenged. Sub-rule (4-A) read as follows: "57-F. (4-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), or sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-A and the notifications issued thereunder, any credit of specified duty lying unutilised on the 16th day of March, 1995, with a manufacturer of tractors, falling under Heading 87.01 or motor vehicles falling under Headings 87.02 and 87.04 or chassis of such tractors or such motor vehicles under Heading 87.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utili sed for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contained in finished products lying in stock on the 16th day of March, 1995." 7. Thus, the then sub-rule (4-A) is identical to sub-rule (17) which is under consideration. In Eicher Motors easel, it has been held that the assessee became entitled to take the credit on the input having been received in the factory on the basis of the existing Scheme. It is held that the right to credit became absolute when the input was used in the manufacture of the final product. It is held that the incident following thereto must take place in accordance with the Scheme under which the duty had been paid on the manufactured product. It is held that if such a situation is sought to be altered necessarily it follows that right which accrued to a party gets affected. It is held that the Scheme sought to be introduced cannot be made applicable to the goods which had already come into existence in respect of which the earlier Scheme was applicable and under which the assessee had availed of the credit facility for payment of taxes. It is held that the right which accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the taxes would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed. It is held that the right which accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the taxes would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed. It is held that the amended sub-rule could not be applied to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995 date on which sub-rule (4-A) came into existence. 8. The principles laid down in Eicher Motors easel are fully applicable here. It is, however, submitted that there is no challenge to the validity of sub-rule (17). It is submitted that this Court cannot, therefore, strike down nor read down sub-rule (17). It is submitted that in the absence of such a challenge full effect has to be given to the wording of sub-rule (17). It is submitted that sub-rule (17) specifically provides that the credit would lapse and that credit shall not be allowed. We are unable to accept this submission. What was then sub-rule (4-A) is now sub-rule (l7)(a). Sub-rule (17)(b) is identical to sub-rule (17)(a) except that it is in respect of a different final product. Once the validity of a provision is challenged and the validity is upheld by reading down that provision, then it is not necessary that in all subsequent proceedings the validity must again be challenged. It is sufficient if a party claims that the provision has to be read in the manner laid down by a judgment of this Court. In the light of the judgment of this Court in Eicher Motors easel sub-rule (17) cannot apply to vested rights. Therefore to the extent that the goods have already been exported, prior to March 1997, the assessee would be entitled to a refund. 9. Reliance was placed on the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE1.. In this case the Court considered the effect of proviso to Rule 57 -G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proviso read as follows: "Provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in first proviso to this sub-rule." 10. This Court held that this proviso did not take away vested right and merely laid down a period of limitation. This Court upheld the contention of the Revenue that after the period of six months, credit could not be claimed. This Court held that this proviso did not take away vested right and merely laid down a period of limitation. This Court upheld the contention of the Revenue that after the period of six months, credit could not be claimed. It was submitted that sub-rule (17) is merely laying down a period of limitation. It is submitted that no vested right is taken away. We are unable to accept this submission. It must be noted that in Osram Surya case2 reliance had been placed upon the judgment in Eicher Motors easel. The Court distinguished the judgment in Eicher Motors easel on the basis that under sub-rule (4-A) vested rights were taken away whereas under the proviso to Rule 57 -G no vested right was being taken away. 11. For all the above reasons, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgments. The same are accordingly set aside. It is directed that the appellants case for refund shall be processed in accordance with law and within a period of three months. 12. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.