ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. The application for modification of cause title is allowed. 2. The appellant manufactures Polyester polymer chips. It uses furnace oil as fuel in its factory. The question involved in these appeals is whether duty paid on the furnace oil used as input could be availed of as credit under the modvat scheme as envisaged under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). To answer the question the provisions of Rule 57A will have to be noted and its parameters determined. 3. Rule 57A insofar as it is relevant provides as follows: Applicability. - "(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished excisable goods (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the final products) as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf for the purpose of allowing credit of any duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as may be specified in the said notification (hereafter, in this section, referred to as the specified duty) paid on the goods used in the manufacture of the said final products (hereafter, in this section, referred to as the inputs). (2) The credit of specified duty allowed under sub-rule (1) shall be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final products, whether under the Act or under any other Act, as may be specified in the notification issued under sub-rule (1) and subject to the provisions of this section and the conditions and restrictions, if any, specified in the said notification. (3) The Central Government may also specify in the said notification the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the credit of specified duty may be restricted." 4. Thus rule 57A (1) provides that the Central Government may by Notification specify the particular excisable goods in respect of which the provisions of the Rule would apply. The said sub-rule also allows the Central Government to specify by way of Notification the duties of excise, additional duty or duty under Customs Tariff Act for which credit could be taken in terms of the said Rule. These duties are known as the specified duties. The said sub-rule also allows the Central Government to specify by way of Notification the duties of excise, additional duty or duty under Customs Tariff Act for which credit could be taken in terms of the said Rule. These duties are known as the specified duties. Rule 57A (2) allows the Central Government to specify by Notification the conditions and restrictions subject to which the credit could be taken. Finally sub-rule (3) of the Rule 57A allows the Central Government to specify the particular goods for excise in respect of which the credit could be taken. All three sub rules therefore merely empower the Central Government to lay down the preconditions for availing of Modvat. 5. Rule 57B insofar as it is relevant provides as follows: Rule 57B Eligibility of credit of duty on certain goods. - "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 57A, the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the specified duty paid on the following goods, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not, namely:- (i) ................. (ii) ................ (iii) goods used as fuel; (iv) goods used for generation of electricity or steam, used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production;" 6. These goods which have been specified under Rule 57B have been specially provided for treatment different from those specified under Rule 57A. This is clear from the non-obstante clause with which the sub-rule 1 of Rule 57B opens. 7. Pursuant to the powers provided under Rule 57A, a Notification was issued by the Central Government on 1st March, 1994 inter alia specifying the duties in respect of which credit could be taken. This is clear from the non-obstante clause with which the sub-rule 1 of Rule 57B opens. 7. Pursuant to the powers provided under Rule 57A, a Notification was issued by the Central Government on 1st March, 1994 inter alia specifying the duties in respect of which credit could be taken. These duties referred to as "specified duty" include: "(i) the duty of excise under the (Central Excise Act, 1944) (1 of 1944); (ii) the additional duty of excise under Section 3 of the Additional Duties Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978);" The Notification contains a proviso which reads as follows: "Provided further that, the credit of specified duty paid in respect of inputs, namely, naphtha, furnace oil, low sulphur heavy stock, light diesel oil, bitumen and paraffin wax falling under Chapter 27 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and used in the manufacture of final products in any place in India shall be restricted,- (i) in the case of input produced or manufactured in India, to the extent of the amount of excise duty calculated at the rate of 10% ad valorem, and (ii) in the case of input imported into India, to the extent of the amount of additional duty calculated by assuming as if the like input produced or manufactured in India is chargeable to excise duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem." 8. In other words in respect of the inputs mentioned in the proviso which were used in the manufacture of final products, credit could be permitted only to a limit of 10% ad valorem. 9. According to the appellant this 10% limit on the credit did not apply in respect of those goods which were cleared under Rule 57B. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, however, submitted that the Notification dated 1st March, 1994, while specifying the duties in respect of which credit could be taken at the same time provided for restrictions of credit up to the limit of 10% ad valorem. Therefore, when Rule 57B spoke of specified duty it would be taken to mean duty as specified in the Notification subject to the restrictions contained therein. 10. Therefore, when Rule 57B spoke of specified duty it would be taken to mean duty as specified in the Notification subject to the restrictions contained therein. 10. It may be mentioned that the inputs or furnace oil used as fuel by the appellant had been subjected to excise duty of 15% which had been borne by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant claimed credit to the extent of 15% under the modvat scheme. The Tribunal accepted the submission of the respondent and rejected the claim of the appellant to modvat credit above 10% ad valorem. 11. We are of the view that the Tribunal erred in holding that the ad valorem inputs credit under Rule 57B was subjected to the limit of 10% ad valorem as specified in the Notification dated 1st March, 1994. Rule 57B, as we have noted, selects certain goods for special treatment other than the treatment they would have been subjected to under Rule 57A. Were the goods not subjected to the special/different treatment, there was no reason to enact a separate rule. The non-obstante clause in Rule 57 B would cease to have any meaning and would be rendered otiose if the goods covered under Rule 57B are treated at par with the goods under Rule 57A. It is true that Rule 57B refers to specified duty. 12. In the Notification dated 1st March, 1994, the duties had been specified. To that extent only could the provisions of Rule 57A be said to have been incorporated or applicable to Rule 57B. The further provision restricting the credit to 10% ad valorem could not be said to be part of the definition of the phrase "specified duty". 13. Whenever the Central Government has sought to limit the credit available under Rule 57B, it has done so by express provisions issuing a separate notification in this regard. For example, Notification No.21/98-CE (NT) dated 2.6.1998 provides for a restriction in respect of Rule 57A and separately for Rule 57B on the credit available. 14. 13. Whenever the Central Government has sought to limit the credit available under Rule 57B, it has done so by express provisions issuing a separate notification in this regard. For example, Notification No.21/98-CE (NT) dated 2.6.1998 provides for a restriction in respect of Rule 57A and separately for Rule 57B on the credit available. 14. The Notification amended Rule 57B by not only limiting the credit but also introducing a proviso which reads as follows: "Provided that credit of specified duty in respect of any inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer of final products on or before the 1st day of June, 1998 shall be allowed to the extent of the duty paid on such inputs:" (Emphasis added) 15. Paraphrased it is clear that in respect of inputs received prior to 1st June, 1998, credit would be allowed to the entire extent of the duty paid on such inputs. Therefore prior to 1st June, 1998 there was no limit on the credit which could be taken on the inputs covered by Rule 57B and it was merely subject to the extent of duty actually paid. The Tribunal had referred to a Notification dated 2nd March, 1998, which inserted an explanation to Rule 57B (1) which reads as follows: "Explanation-for the purposes of this sub rule, it is hereby clarified that the term 'inputs' refers only to such inputs as may be specified in a notification issued under rule 57-A". 16. This does not refer to the limits but only refers to the specified inputs in respect of which credit could be taken. The Explanation has no bearing on the issue to be decided. There is no dispute that the inputs in this case are inputs specified under Rule 57A in respect of which modvat credit was permissible. 17. The relevant period in these appeals is March, 97 to Feb.99. Therefore, in terms of Rule 57B as amended the appellant would be entitled to take credit in respect of the furnance oil for the amount actually paid on account of specified duty upto 2nd June, 1998 and thereafter at 95% of the duty paid. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. 18. In view of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 7334-7336/2000, C.A. No. 7454-7456/2000, C.A. NO. 1860/2001, C.A. NO. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. 18. In view of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 7334-7336/2000, C.A. No. 7454-7456/2000, C.A. NO. 1860/2001, C.A. NO. 2150/2001, C. A. No. 3555/2001, C. A. No. 5273/2001 and C. A. No. 7904/2003 are disposed of. C.A. No. 4346/03 19. This appeal relates to the question whether the credit on the inputs used under Rule 57A Central Excise Rules 1944 was restricted to 10% ad valorem. The Notification dated 1st March 1994 as amended on 3rd May, 1997 clearly provided that as far as Rule 57A is concerned, the manufacturer was entitled to input credit only up to the limit of 10% ad valorem. In that view of the matter this appeal must be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has sought to urge that notification dated 3.5.97 was ultra vires. This is not the subject matter of the present appeal. It is open to the appellant to approach an appropriate forum to raise this issue if it is otherwise so entitled in accordance with law.