JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions carries common question of law founded on almost identical and similar facts situation and all these writ petitions were, therefore, analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The basic facts necessary for proper resolution of the issue raised in this writ petition may be reflected in a short compass. Factual Matrix: 3. A new Industrial Policy Resolution containing a package of incentives and concessions for the entire North East Region was announced by the Government of India with the floating of Notification dated 24.12.1997 with a view to boost the industrial growth, development and activities in North East Region. It was announced and promised by the Government of India that all industrial activities for such area would be free from, inter-alia, income tax, central excise for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of the production and also that State Government would be requested for exemption in respect of sale tax, municipal tax-and other such local taxes on industrial activities in the said areas. 4. In pursuance of the assurance given by Government of India in terms of Notification dated 24.12.1997 above, the Secretariat to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi issued Notifications No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE both on 8.7.99 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5(4)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') and thereby all excisable goods as specified in the said Notifications cleared from a unit located in the Growth or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre etc., here in the instant case, the State of Assam were exempted from much of the excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173(G) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules'). 5. Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of those Notifications provide that the exemption contained in those Notifications shall apply only to the following kind of units namely: (a) New Industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after 24th day of December, 1997. 5. Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of those Notifications provide that the exemption contained in those Notifications shall apply only to the following kind of units namely: (a) New Industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after 24th day of December, 1997. (b) Industrial units existing before 24th December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five percent on or after the 24th December, 1997. 6. For the sake of convenience, Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 dated 08.07.1999 may be extracted as under: (COPY) NOTIFICATION No. 32/99-CENTRAL EXCISE DATED THE 8TH JULY, 1999. NE REGION: Goods Produced in Specified Industrial Area, Industrial Estate EPIP, etc No Basic & Additional Duty of Excise. GSR(E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional duties of Excise (Goods of special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section 3 of the Addition, Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and cleared from a unit located in the Growth Center or Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre or Export Promotion Industrial Park or Industrial Estates or Industrial Area or Commercial Estate, as the case may be, specified in Annexure appended to this notification, from so much of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The Exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner, namely: a. The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. b. The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. c. If there is likely to be any delay in the verification, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 5th of the next month to the month under consideration and thereafter may adjust the amount of the refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 3. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kind of units namely : a. New Industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th December, 1997. b. Industrial units existing before the 24th December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five percent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply of the said units for a period of not exceeding ten years from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later. 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply of the said units for a period of not exceeding ten years from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later. NOTIFICATION No. 33/99-CENTRAL EXCISE 6.S.R(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944(1 of 1944), read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods: of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978) of the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods specified in the schedule appended to notification and cleared from a unit located in the State of Assam or Tripura or Meghalaya or Mizoram or Manipur or Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh, as the case may be, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as in equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner namely: (a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. (b) The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. (b) The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. (c) If there is likely to be any delay in the verification, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 15th of the next month to the month under consideration, and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 3. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kind of units namely: (a) New Industrial unit which have commenced their commercial production on or after 24th day of December, 1997. (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five percent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply to any of the said units for a period not exceeding ten years from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later. 7. All the Petitioners in the writ petitions, as the case may be, either set up their respective new Industrial Units commencing their commercial production on or after 24.12.1997 or undertook substantial expansion of the Industrial Units existing before 24.12.1997 by way of increase in installed capacity more than 25% on or after 24.12.1997. 8. In view of such factual situation as regards the commencement of the new Industrial Unit as well as substantial expansion undertaken in all the existing units, the Petitioners herein, depending on their respective facts and circumstances of the individual cases, were availing all the benefits accrued upon them in terms of the above Notifications being No. 32/99 and 33/99 dated 08.07.1999. Various circulars and notifications were issued by the revenue authorities from time to time in order to facilitate, the benefits in terms of Industrial Policy above and one of the major benefits which the Petitioners sought to acquire on the basis of the Industrial Policy, was the Central Excise benefits. 9. Be it herein mentioned that the MOD VAT Scheme, 1986 was being replaced by new Scheme called as Central Value Added Tax Scheme (for short 'the CENVAT') making it operative w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The term CENVAT has been referred to excise duty under Section 3 of the Act which provides that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed a duty of excise to be called CENVAT and all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. 10. The CENVAT above was brought into effect vide Notification No. 27/2000 CE(NT) dated 31.03.2000 which contained the new set of Rules namely Rules 57AA to 57 AK in the Rules. Subsequently a major change took place in the redrafting of the Rules which had resulted in announcing a separate set of rules only for dealing with CENVAT Schemes. That Rules was "CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001" which was announced vide Notification No. 31/2001-CE(NT) dated 21.06.2001 and came into force on 01.07.2001. The said set of rules under the new scheme of CENVAT was more or less worded as per, the Old Rules 57AA to 57AK. In the Union Budget 2002-03 the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 was replaced with the new set of Rules titled "Cenvat Credit Rules 2002" (for short, "the CENVAT Rules") announced through notification No. 5/ 2002-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2002. 11. Both Notifications No. 32/99-CE and No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 were amended by the Notification No. 61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002. By the said amendment a proviso was inserted in the Second paragraph in Clause (b) to the effect that the refund was not to exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of CENVAT Credit availed of in respect to the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under the respective Notifications dated 08.07.1999. 12. The Notification No. 61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002 reads as under: NOTIFICATION No. 61/2002-CENTRAL EXCISE, DATED DEC. 12. The Notification No. 61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002 reads as under: NOTIFICATION No. 61/2002-CENTRAL EXCISE, DATED DEC. 23, 2002 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India, in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed shall be further amended, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such amendment, in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table Sl. No. Notification No. and Date Amendment 1. 32/99-Central Exercise, dated the 8th, July, 1999. In the said notification, in the Second paragraph, in Clause (b), the following proviso shall be added, namely : Provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacturer of goods cleared under this Notification; 2. 33/99 Central Exercise, dated 8th July, 1999. In the said Notification, in the Second Paragraph, in Clause (b), the following proviso shall be added, namely : Provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under this notification. 13. Subsequent to the above amendment, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 37 of the Act further amended the CENVAT Rules vide Notification No. 42/2002 issued on 23.12.2002 by inserting a proviso in Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Rules stipulating that the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacturer of final products cleared after availing of all exemptions under those Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 dated 08.07.1999 shall be utilized only for payment of duty on final products cleared after availing of all the exemptions under the said Notifications. Notifications No. 42/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002 runs as follows: NOTIFICATION No. 42/2002-CENTRAL EXCISE (NT.) Dated Dec. 23, 2002. Notifications No. 42/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002 runs as follows: NOTIFICATION No. 42/2002-CENTRAL EXCISE (NT.) Dated Dec. 23, 2002. G.S.R.(E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, namely: (1) These rules may be called the CENVAT Credit (Amendment) Rules; 2002. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, in Rule 3, in Sub-rule (3), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: Provided further that the CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared after availing of the exemption under the notification numbers 32/99-Central Excise, dated the 8th July 1999 [G.S.R. 508 (E) dated the 8th July 1999] and 33/99-Central Excise dated the 8th July 1999 [G.S.R. 509 (E) dated the 8th July 1999] shall be utilized for payment of duty on final products cleared after availing of the exemption under the said notification numbers 32/99-Central Excise, dated the 8th July 1999 and 33/99 Central Excise, dated the 8th July, 1999. 14. Effect of the above amendment was that the credit earned on inputs used in final product cleared after availing exemptions under Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 was permitted for use only for payment of duty on the final products cleared under exemption; meaning thereby Notification No. 42/2002 sought to disallow diversion of credit of inputs use or manufacture of products exempted under earlier two Notifications for payment of excise duty on other products not covered under exemption so as to avoid unintended benefit of higher amount of refund. By virtue of Notifications No. 61/2002 and 42/2002 dated 23.12.2002, the Government made it compulsory for Assessee not to utilize the CENVAT for payment of a non-specified item and to utilize the same for the payment of duty and not to carry forward by way of piling up. 15. By virtue of Notifications No. 61/2002 and 42/2002 dated 23.12.2002, the Government made it compulsory for Assessee not to utilize the CENVAT for payment of a non-specified item and to utilize the same for the payment of duty and not to carry forward by way of piling up. 15. By the Finance Bill, 2003 which received the assent of the President on 14.05.2003 to become an Act namely the Finance Act, 2003 (No. 32 of in its 2003) (for short, the 'Finance Act') the Government in its Budget 2003-2004, effected drastic changes by making those amendments retrospective with effect from 08.07.1999 by inserting Sections 150, 151 and 153 including Sixth, Seventh and particularly Eighth Schedule. It would, therefore, be clear that by the Finance Act the Legislature amended Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 and Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Rules by giving retrospective effect. 16. Consequent upon such amendment of Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Rules and in terms of the amended provisions of Sections 150, 151 and 153 of the Finance Act, the Revenue Authority, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati, as the case may be, without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing, as alleged and without taking the CENVAT Credit utilized by the writ Petitioners into account, by passing the different orders assailed in this host of writ petitions, directed the Petitioners to make payment of the respective specified amount mentioned in those impugned orders within the period of 30 days from 14.05.2003. the date on which the Finance Bill, 2003 received the assent of the President, failing which an interest @ 15% per annum should be payable from the date immediately after the expiry of 30 days above till the date of payments holding that those calculated amount fixed in the respective impugned orders were required to be recovered from the Petitioners, being the refund granted earlier which had become not eligible by virtue of Section 153 of the Finance Act. 17. The correctness and validity of all those orders passed on various dates by the Revenue authority have been questioned in this bunch of writ petitions. In some of those writ petitions, the vires of Sections 150, 151 and 153 of the Finance Act has also been challenged. 18. Heard the learned Counsel representing the writ Petitioners as well as the Revenue. In some of those writ petitions, the vires of Sections 150, 151 and 153 of the Finance Act has also been challenged. 18. Heard the learned Counsel representing the writ Petitioners as well as the Revenue. Also closely analysed the materials available on records including the impugned orders. Relevant legal provisions: 19. Considering the assailment of the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 150, 151and 153 of the Finance Act in some of the writ petitions, it would be necessary and relevant to refer to those sections along with the Eighth Schedule under Section 153(1) being essential to note herein and those may be reproduced as below: 150. Amendment of Rules 57-F and 57-AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944-(1) In the Central Excise Rules,-1944 made by the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, (a) in Rule 57-F, Sub-rule (12), as substituted by Clause (a) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1997, published in the Official Gazette vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). No. G.S.R. 122(E), dated the 1st March, 1997; and (b) in Rule 57-AB, in Sub-rule (1), Clause (b), as substituted by Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000, published in the Official Gazette vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. G.S.R. 203 (E), dated the 1st March, 2000 shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in column (3) of the Sixth Schedule, on and from the corresponding date specified in column (4) of that Schedule against each of the said sub-rules specified in column (2) of that Schedule till the date on which those sub-rules, were superseded. (2) Any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done at any time during the period commencing on and from the 8th day of July, 1999 and ending with the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President under the Central Excise Act or any rules made thereunder for not allowing the credit of specified duty or the CEN VAT Credit, as the case may be, to be taken or utilized which would have been allowed to be taken or utilized but for the amendments made by Sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be and to always have been, for all purposes as validly and effectively taken or done as if the amendments made by Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times, and accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order or any Court, Tribunal or other authority- (a) No suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any Court for allowing the credit of specified any or the CENVAT Credit, as the case may be, and no enforcement shall be made by any Court of any decree or order allowing the credit of specified duty or the CENVAT Credit, as the case may be, not allowed to be taken or utilized as if the amendments made by Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times: (b) Recovery shall be made of all the credit of specified duty or the CENVAT Credit which have been taken and utilized but which would not have been allowed to be taken and utilized, if the amendment made by Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times, within a period of thirty days from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President and in the event of non-payment of such credit of duties within this period, in addition to the amount of credit of such duties recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum shall be payable, from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days till the date of payment. (3) Notwithstanding the supersession of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 referred to in Sub-section (1) for the purposes of that sub-section, the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to make the rules with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to make rules under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, retrospectively at all material times. Explanation-1-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this section had not come into force. Explanation-2-For the purposes of this section, the expressions "specified duty" and "Cenvat Credit", have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Rules 57-A and 57-AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 referred to in Sub-section (1). 151. Amendment of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001-(1) In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, made by the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 thereof as published in the Official Gazette vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. G.S.R. 445(E), dated the 21st June, 2001 shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in column (2) of the Seventh Schedule, on and from the corresponding date specified in column (3) of that Schedule till the date on which the said CENVAT Credit Rules were superseded. (2) Any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done at any time during the period commencing on and from the 1st day of July, 2001 and ending with the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President, under the Central Excise Act or any rules made thereunder for not allowing the CENVAT Credit to be taken or utilized which would have been allowed to be taken or utilized, but for the amendment made by Sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be, and to always have been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the amendment made by Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times, and accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority- (a) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court for allowing the CENVAT credit and no enforcement shall be made by any court of any decree or order allowing the CENVAT credit not allowed to be taken or utilized if the amendment made by sub-section(1) had been in force at all material times. (b) recovery shall be made of all the CENVAT credit, which have been taken and utilized but which would not have been allowed to be taken and utilized, if the amendment made by sub-section(1) had been in force at all material times, within a period of thirty days from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President and in the event of non-payment of such CENVAT credit within this period, in addition to the amount of such CENVAT credit recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum shall be payable, from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days till the date of payment. (3) Notwithstanding the suppression of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 referred to in Sub-section (1), for the purpose of that sub-section, the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to make the rules with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to make rules under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, retrospectively at all material times. Explanation-1-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this section had not come into force. Explanation-2-For the purpose of this section, the expression "Cenvat Credit" has the meaning assigned to it in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 referred to in Sub-section (1). ... ... 153. Amendment of notifications issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act for certain period-(1). The notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Nos. G.S.R. 508(E), dated the 8th July, 1999 and G.S.R. 509(E), dated the 8th July, 1999, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textiles Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978) by the Central Government shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended in the manner as specified in the Eight Schedule, on and from the 8th day of July, 1999 to the 22nd day of December, 2002 (both days inclusive) retrospectively, and accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done under the said notifications, shall be deemed to be and always to have been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the notifications as amended by this sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) For the purpose of Sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to amend the notifications referred to in the said sub-section with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to amend the said notifications under Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile Article) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), retrospectively at all material times. (3) Notwithstanding the cessation of the amendment under Sub-section (1) on the 22nd day of December, 2002, no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or contained in any Court, tribunal or other authority for any action taken or anything done or omitted to be done, in respect of any goods under the said notifications, and no enforcement shall be made by any Court, Tribunal or other authority of any decree or order relating to such action or anything done or omitted to be done as if the amendment made by Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. (4) Notwithstanding the cessation of the amendment under Sub-section (1) on the 22nd day of December, 2002, recovery shall be made of all amounts of duty or interest or other charges which have not been collected or, as the case may be, which have been refunded but which would have been collected or, as the case may be, which would not have been refunded if the provisions of this Section had been in force at all material times, within a period of thirty days form the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President, and in the event of non-payment of duty or interest or other charges so recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen percent, per annum shall be payable, from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, till the date of payment. Explanation: For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if the notifications referred to in Sub-section (1) had not been amended retrospectively by that sub-section. THE EIGHT SCHEDULE [See Section 153(1)] Sl. No. Notification No. & Date Amendment Date of effect of Amendment 1 2 3 4 1. GSR 508 (E), dtd the 8th July, 1999 [32/1999- Central Exercise dated the 8th July, 1999] In the said notification, in paragraph-2, in Clause (b) the following proviso shall be inserted namely "Provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under this notification. 8th July, 1999 2. 8th July, 1999 2. GSR 590 (E), dated the 8th July, 1999 [33/1999-Central Exercise dated the 8th July, 1999] In the said notification, in paragraph-2, in Clause (b) the following proviso shall be inserted namely : "Provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used or In relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under this notification. 8th July, 1999 20. It appears from the common reading of Section 153(1) with the Eighth Schedule appended to the Finance Act and Notifications No. 61/2002 and 42/2002 dated 23.12.2002 above that the amendment of paragraph 2(b) in both the Notifications No. / 32/99 and 33/99 was given effect from 08.07.1999 to 22.12.2002 retrospectively making it incumbent or Assessee not to utilize CENVAT Credit for payment of non specified items and to utilized the same for the payment of duty and not to carry forward. By means of the amendment in question, it has been laid down that the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of next month provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT Credit availed of, in respect of duty paid on the inputs used in, or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under those Notifications. Admitted Fact: 21. Admittedly though the Petitioners had merely recorded CENVAT Credit in their respective RG-23 A Registers, the said credit had not been utilized to pay the excise duty payable on the goods manufactured by them. Findings of Revenue: 22. The impugned orders, as it transpires, passed in the respective writ petitions herein either by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, raised a demand from the Petitioners on various amounts pursuant to the above mentioned retrospective amendments observing that if CENVAT Credit was merely entered by the manufacturers in their RG-23 A Registers, that by itself constituted availment of the CENVAT Credit even though it was undisputed that the writ Petitioners did not utilise the credit for paying excise duty. Petitioners' contentions: 23. Petitioners' contentions: 23. The legality of the impugned orders has been challenged basically on the following 5(five) grounds: (i) No opportunity whatsoever was granted in terms of Section 11(A)(1)of the Act, which provides for a mandatory notice and the impugned orders were, therefore, hit by the principles of natural justice, (ii) The impugned orders were contrary to the Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/ 99 dated 08.07.1999 as well as the existing Industrial Policy by which certain vested rights had been accrued upon the Petitioners by virtue of establishment of their Industrial Units or by undertaking substantial expansion of their existing units, as the case might be. (iii) The amendment in question brought into effect by Sections 150,151 and 153 of the Finance Act, were violative of Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 and the Industrial Policy as the same had the affect of taking away the vested rights accrued to the Petitioners retrospectively and as such the same had violated the Petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 read with Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (iv) The impugned orders were based absolutely on patent misconstruction or misinterpretation of the crucial word "availment". (v) The entire issue debated in this bunch of writ petitions is directly and squarely covered in favour of the Petitioners by the judicial authority pronounced in the case of Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2006 (1) SCC 396 . 24. Accordingly, the writ Petitioners have precisely sought for the following reliefs: i) Declaration of Sections 150, 151 and 153 of the Finance Act, 2003 by which legislature retrospectively amended the Notification No. 32/99and 33/99 dated 08.07.1999 and Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional and ultra vires, being contrary to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and ii) Quashment of the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise on the ground that the impugned actions were founded on glaring erroneous paraphrase and mistaken analysis of the provisions of relevant sections of the Finance Act. Contentions of the Department: 25. The Department has strongly contested and objected to the averments including the prayer made in the writ petitions by filing response. Contentions of the Department: 25. The Department has strongly contested and objected to the averments including the prayer made in the writ petitions by filing response. Its stand is that the amendment of Finance Act categorically authorised the Central Excise to raise a demand on the Assessee only if and to the extent that the Assessee availed of the benefit of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs used of the manufacture of finished excisable goods and as such CENVAT Credit thus "taken/availed of needs to be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final products. The revenue has further contended that a huge amount of CENVAT Credit availed of by the Petitioners was being sought to be carried forward and/or piled up for reasons best known to the assesses whereas the very purpose of CENVAT Credit Scheme for North East was that the manufacturers first utilized the CENVAT Credit 'availed of for payment of duty and only thereafter the remaining amount of duty be paid in cash which was subsequently to be refunded. Furthermore, though the CENVAT Credit Scheme did not require one to one co-relation between the inputs and the final products, the amendment made to the North East Notification and CENVAT Rules would certainly require ascertainment of the credit of the inputs used in the manufacturer of final products on which the exemption was availed of under those Notifications in order to determine the impugned refundable amount under those exemptions. 26. According to the Revenue, the amendment made to the Notifications No. 32/ 99-CE and 33/99-CE restricted the refund amount under those Notifications to the duty paid less the CENVAT Credit availed of in respect of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacturer of goods cleared under the Notifications. Because the manufacturers were required to pay only that portion of duty in cash which remained after exhausting the CENVAT Credit. 27. It is stated by the Revenue that as per provisions of the Finance Act, the huge amount which the Petitioners allowed to be accrued instead of utilization of CENVAT Credit availed of, needed to be recovered within the period of 30 days from the date on which the Finance Bill received the assent of the President on 14.05.2003. 28. 27. It is stated by the Revenue that as per provisions of the Finance Act, the huge amount which the Petitioners allowed to be accrued instead of utilization of CENVAT Credit availed of, needed to be recovered within the period of 30 days from the date on which the Finance Bill received the assent of the President on 14.05.2003. 28. The aforesaid provisions of law being an Act of the Parliament, it is pleaded by the Revenue, the service of notice under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the Petitioners was not necessary. 29. The thrust of revenue is that Notifications No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE from the beginning provided exemption only from the duty which was paid by way of other than utilization of CENVAT Credit and prescribed refund of the same. It was, therefore, always obligatory on the part of the manufacturers to utilize the CENVAT Credit first and then pay the balance amount in cash which was to be refunded back. Moreover Section 153 of the Finance Act as mentioned above retrospectively amended Notifications No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 so as to provide that the refund should not exceed the duty paid less the amount of CENVAT Credit availed of. 30. It is further averred by the revenue that purposive interpretation can be applied to those amended Notifications so as to decipher the correct meaning of the same. Following case laws have been referred to with regard to such propositions of purposive interpretation: (i) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1989) 4 SCC 541 (para 6) (ii) Chandrpur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in (1996) 2 SCC 159 and (iii) Collector of Custom, Bombay v. M.J. Exports Ltd. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 756 . 31. In such premises, Sections 150, 151 and 153 gave retrospective effect to those amendments so as to ensure that deliberate diversion of credit or accumulation of credit by the manufacturer in the past did not result in excess unintended refund to them and hence those sections are not ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14,19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners: 32. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners: 32. The learned Counsel representating the Petitioners has strongly argued that raising demands on the Petitioners by the impugned orders pursuant to retrospective amendments made to the Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/ 99 through the Finance Act were rested on incorrect reading and mis-interpretation of the amended. Notifications as in those Notifications nowhere made it compulsory for the manufacturers to utilize CENVAT credit amount recorded by them in their registers for payment of excise duty chargeable on the manufactured goods covered by the exemptions granted in original Notifications. 33. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the revenue committed patent error by mis-construction and mis-interpretation of the crucial words "availed of so occurred in the proviso of Clause 2(b) of the Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 by way of amendment of Finance Act with retrospective effect from 08.07.1999 providing that refund should not exceed to the amount of duty paid less the amount of CENVAT Credit availed of. 34. Referring to the dictionary meaning of the word 'avail', the Petitioners' counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (A) and Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary (B) wherein the word 'avail' has been defined respectively as under: (A) "(1) To function effectively or advantageously in the accomplishment of an objective; be useful or beneficial for a specific purpose, (2) to be of profit or value; serve to clarify or improve a situation, (3)(a) to take advantage; make use used with of (b) to use or apply to good advantage. (B) "To be of value or service to; to benefit to take advantage; to give (one) the benefit (of); to be of use; to answer the purpose; to draw advantage; 35. Relying on the definitions of 'avail' as quoted above, it is submitted that the dictionary meaning of availed also speak of use and utilization of CENVAT Credit amount and a manufacturer, cannot, therefore, be considered to have 'availed of CENVAT Credit unless his final assessment has been made and the CENVAT Credit has actually been utilized in that assessment to pay off or discharge the excise duty payable on the products manufactured, as determined in the assessment order. 36. 36. Assailing the impugned action of the Revenue, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the correct construction of Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99, would go to show that it exempted goods listed in the Schedule thereto from so much of the duty of excise as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under the Rules. Under Clause 2(b) of Notifications, manufacturers were required to first to pay the excise duty, which would then be refunded to them by 15th of next month. The Petitioners accordingly paid the excise duty on their manufactured products and were granted exemptions under Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 and the amounts of duty paid were duly refunded to them. According to the Petitioners' counsel, it was permissible to the manufacturers to pay the excise duty in cash instead of utilizing CENVAT Credit amount and for this reason only the Petitioners were earlier permitted by the Excise authorities throughout the period in question, i.e., 1999 to 2002 to pay the excise duty on the finished product in cash without utilizing the CENVAT Credit amount on the inputs for payment of excise duty. Now by the retrospective amendments on 23.12.02 in question, such vested rights of the Petitioners could not be taken away. That being so, the basic word "availment" in passing the impugned orders were wholly misinterpreted. 37. It is also contended that revenue's contention based on the principle of purposive interpretation was wholly misconceived as there was no specific statement and object made available to indicate the purpose of the amended Notifications. However, even if the doctrine of purposive interpretation was applied, there would be no deviation in the result because even the object of the amended provision was clearly relatable only to the actual utilization of the CENVAT Credit and not merely to making entries in the RG 23 A register. 38. Finally it is argued that the issue raised in this batch of writ petition is clearly and directly covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 396 in favour of the Petitioners. 38. Finally it is argued that the issue raised in this batch of writ petition is clearly and directly covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 396 in favour of the Petitioners. Referring to paragraph-13 of the above referred case, it is submitted that the Apex Court in interpreting the word 'taken' appeared in Rule 56A(9) of the Rules which provides that no credit of duty on any material component parts or finished product shall be allowed under this Rule if the credit of duty paid on such material component parts or finished products has been taken under Rule 57A, held that the manufacturer could not be considered to have 'taken' MOTVAT Credit and that Rule 57A did not apply and that, therefore, the manufacturers were not barred from getting the benefit of credit under Rule 56A. Seeking application of the ratio of the Shree Hari Chemicals Export's case (supra) in the instant case, it is submitted that manufacturer cannot be considered to have 'availed of CENVAT Credit unless his final assessment has been made and the CENVAT Credit has actually been utilized in that assessment to pay off or discharge the excise duty payable on the products manufactured, as determined in the assessment order. 39. The emphatic stand from the Petitioners' side is that the Petitioners' case herein stand on a better footing than Shree Hari Chemicals Export's case (supra), because the words 'availed of are far more strongly indicative of actual utilization of the CENVAT Credit amount than the words 'credit taken'. It is argued that the words 'availed of must be given the same meaning as 'taken' i.e., the credit must actually be utilized. Arguments advanced for the Revenue: 40. The learned Counsel appearing for the revenue has strongly refuted those contentions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners and at the very outset it is vehemently argued that Shree Hari Chemicals Export's case (supra) has no applicability in the present case in its attending facts and circumstances of the case. Because the said authority has been decided in a different factual matrix. Rather the said citation supports the case of the revenue in the context of Eight Schedule to the Finance Act. Because the said authority has been decided in a different factual matrix. Rather the said citation supports the case of the revenue in the context of Eight Schedule to the Finance Act. According to the revenue, no distinction can be made between the words 'taken' or 'availed of. 41. It is contended that from a perusal of Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Rules it would reveal that CENVAT Credit thus 'taken or availed of is to be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final products and a manufacturer is accordingly allowed to take CENVAT Credit which is to be utilized towards such payment. It is stated that though the words 'taken or availed of has been loosely used in the Rules, the purport of the Rule is that the credit 'taken' has to be 'utilized'. Hence the meaning to be assigned to the words 'taken/availed of used in Notifications No. 61/02 CE and No. 42/02 dated 23.12.2002 and the Eight Schedule to the Finance Act, has to be consistent with the legislative intent. It is also urged that Rule 12 of the CENVAT Rules, does not make any distinction between the words 'taken' or availed of. 42. The basic thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the department is that it is mandatory for the manufacturer to first utilize the CENVAT Credit and then pay the balance amount in cash to be returned and in the instant case what the Petitioners did was to pile up the credit and took refund against cash payments under Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 dated 08.07.1999. The purpose of the amended Notification dated 23.12.2002 was to ensure that the manufacturer first utilized the CENVAT Credit and then paid the balance amount in cash to be returned later on. 43. In support of those submissions, primarily on the point of purposive interpretation, the decisions in the cases of (i) Tata Oil Mills (supra) (ii) Chandrpur Magnet Wires (supra) and (iii) M.J. Exports (supra) as already above, have been pressed into service. Reasons and findings: 44. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the persuasive arguments put forward by the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties. Reasons and findings: 44. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the persuasive arguments put forward by the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties. Also perused carefully the pleadings exchanged by and between the parties in support of their respective stand taken for resolution of the contentions issue raised in the bunch of writ petitions including the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati, as the case may be directing the Petitioners to make payment by way of recovery of the concerned amount being the refund granted earlier which have become ineligible by virtue of retrospective amendment made in Section 153 of the Finance Act, being the refund granted during the period from 08.07.1999 to 22.12.2002. 45. On meticulous analysis of the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of law, as quoted above, it appears that the writ Petitioners have been availing the benefits of exemption of Central Excise duty by way of refund in terms of Notification No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE both being dated 08.07.1999 as new units or in case of old units having gone for substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 24.12.1997 as per paragraphs 3(b) of the said Notifications, as the case may be, and during the relevant period in between 08.07.1999 to 22.12.2002 considerable amount were sanctioned to the Petitioners by way of refund in terms of paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the above mentioned Notifications to the extent of duty paid during the current account. However, by Notification No. 61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002, the Notification No. 32/99-CE and No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 was amended providing that refund of duty so availed by way of exemption should not exceed the amount of duty paid less then the amount of the CENVAT Credit availed of in respect of duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of goods cleared under the said Notification, as already noticed herein above. 46. 46. Later on, Clause 145(1) of the Finance Bill, 2003 which was given effect under Section 153 of the Finance Act, 2003 as indicated above, enacted on 14.05.2003, amended Notification No. 32/99-CE and 33/ 99-CE both dated 08.07.1999 issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with other relevant provisions of law as already noticed above in the manner specified in Eighth Schedule on and from 08.07.1999 to 22.12.2002 (both date inclusive) retrospectively. Section 153(4)of the Finance Act amongst Ors. provisions of said Clause 2 and 3 contemplate that notwithstanding cessation of the amendment under subsection 1 on 22.12.2002, recovery shall be made on all amount of duty or interest or other charges which have been collected or as the case may be which have been refunded but which would not have collected if the provision of this section had been in force at all material times within a period of 30 days from the date on which Finance Bill receives the assent to the President, i.e., on 14.05.2003 and in the event of non-payment of duty or interest or other changes so recoverable interest at the rate of 15% payable from the date immediately after expiry of said period of 30 days till the date of payment. 47. In the above premises, after going through the impugned orders, it appears that the entire refunds sanctioned w.e.f. 08.07.1999 till 22.12.1999 were reviewed in terms of provisions of Eighth Schedule of the Finance Act, and the amounts specified in the respective impugned orders were ordered to be recovered from the assesses, being the refund granted earlier as benefits which had become ineligible by virtue of Section 153 of the Finance Act. 48. As regards contention of violation of principle of natural justice by not issuing mandatory notices under Section 11A(1) of the Act. 48. As regards contention of violation of principle of natural justice by not issuing mandatory notices under Section 11A(1) of the Act. on close reading of the said provision of law which provides that when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer within six months from the relevant date serve notice on the persons chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short levied or short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been paid, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice, it indicates that the said provision speaks of the duty "erroneously refunded" and in the instant case, the refunds made to the assesses under the Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 were not 'erroneously refunded' but those refund were the benefits granted under those Notifications and as such the same were recoverable under the provision of Section 153 of the Finance Act. That being so, the application of Section 11A(1) of the Act does not arise in the instant case. 49. So far as the submission that the impugned orders were contrary to the Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 as well as the existing Industrial Policy under which assesses claimed to have accrued certain vested rights is concerned, it is observed that the New Industrial Policy and other concessions for North Eastern Region extended 100% excise duty exemption and those did not in any manner include the benefits of CENVAT Credit for the manufacturers. It was only because of the exemption allowed to be permitted through the refund mechanism, the manufacturers in North Eastern Region got entitled to CENVAT Credit which could be used to pay duty. The provision of scheme was for refund of that portion of duty which was paid in cash. The manufacturer was undoubtedly, expected to pay only that portion of duty in cash which could not be paid by utilization of CENVAT Credit. Exemption permissible under those Notifications i.e., Nos. 32/99 and 33/99 was only from duty which was paid by way of other than utilization of the CENVAT Credit and refund of the same was prescribed therein. The manufacturer was undoubtedly, expected to pay only that portion of duty in cash which could not be paid by utilization of CENVAT Credit. Exemption permissible under those Notifications i.e., Nos. 32/99 and 33/99 was only from duty which was paid by way of other than utilization of the CENVAT Credit and refund of the same was prescribed therein. The amendment effected through Section153 of the Act retrospectively only to ensure that the manufacturer utilize the CENVAT Credit availed of on the inputs on the manufacture of final products on which exemption was availed of, for payment of duty and pay only the balance of duty in cash. The impugned amendment of those Notifications with retrospective effect was also to ensure that deliberate diversion of credit or accumulation of credit by the manufacturer in the past did not result in excess unintended refund to them. In the case in hand, the assesses, by accumulating the CENVAT Credit had paid excess duty in cash as a result of which they had availed excess unintended refund under those Notifications. The purpose of issuance of Notifications No. 61 /2002 and 42/2002 dated 23.12.2003 and subsequent legislation of the same through Section 153 of the Finance Act was basically intended to restrict the amount of refund to a limit not exceeding the amount of duty paid less the amount of CENVAT Credit availed of in respect of duty paid or inputs used in or any relation to the manufacturer of goods cleared under Notifications No. 32/99-CE and 33/ 99-CE dated 08.07.1999, as the case may be. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned orders were contrary to those Notifications including the existing Industrial Policy. 50. Now coming to the challenge to the vires of Sections 150, 151 and 153 of the Finance Act as being unreasonable and arbitrary violating the Petitioners fundamental rights primarily guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, it is observed that since by those provisions particularly by Section 153, operating retrospectively, the benefits guaranteed to the assesses under initial Notifications had been taken away as mentioned above, these Constitutional provisions cannot be said to be unreasonable merely as it operated retrospectively. It is settled that the competence of Parliament and State Legislatures to repeal, amend or supersede an exemption Notification is unquestionable. It is settled that the competence of Parliament and State Legislatures to repeal, amend or supersede an exemption Notification is unquestionable. The limitation on this power is that the legislation must not conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. The unreasonability in retrospective operation of legislation must lie in some other additional factors which are generally considered relevant in answering the question as to whether a particular provision, which is in terms retrospective, ex-facie discriminatory or so unreasonable or confiscatory that it violates Articles 14 and19 of the Constitution are- (i) the context in which retrospectivity was contemplated; (ii) period of such retrospectivity and (iii) the decree of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden for the past period. Moreso, if the executive, vested with the power of subordinate legislation, has failed to carry out the object of Parliament, such control may be exercised by retrospectively enacting what the executive ought to have achieved. (See R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India reported in (2006) 7 SCC 725, paragraphs 20, 21 and 22). This Court is, accordingly, of the considered view that Sections 150 , 151 and 153 of the Finance Act cannot be held to be unreasonable, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 51. Having regard to Shree Hari Chemicals Export's case (supra) so relied upon on behalf of the Petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio of the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said authority, the issue raised therein was as to whether the Central Excise authority was justified in disallowing credit to the Assessee therein under Rule 56A(8) of the Rules on the plea that the Assessee availed MODVAT Credit in terms of Rules 57A of the Rules. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 5 and 13 of Shree Hari Chemicals Export's case (supra) would go to show that although the Assessee initially availed credit facility of duty on Naphthalene in terms of Rule 57A under which no such facility was available in terms of MODVAT Credit Scheme, in relation to naphthalene as an input for manufacturing hydrochloric acid, the Assessee later on sought to avail credit under Rule 56A of the Rules which was rejected by the department. In this context the Supreme Court observed that the wrong mentioning of a section would not be a ground to refuse relief to an Assessee if he was otherwise entitled to thereto. Accordingly in paragraph-13 it was held as follows: 13. ...The Appellant herein although had taken credit as regards input on naphthalene in terms of Rule 57A, evidently the same shall not applicable in his case. He had, therefore, no other option but to return the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the word 'taken' must be understood in its proper perspective. A person cannot take the benefit unless final order of assessment is passed. Only because in his books of accounts entries are made for taking all the credits in terms of one provision of the Rules, the same if ultimately found to be inapplicable and return of the credit have taken effect, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any legal bar in claiming exemption under Anr. rule The above observation clearly goes to indicate that the issue raised in this batch of writ petitions that pertains to whether CENVAT Credit 'taken/availed of is utilized towards payment of duty on final products cannot be equated with the above cited report which related to mere making entries in the books for taking MODVAT Credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Rules when the same was subsequently found to be inapplicable. 52. The next question being the crucial one is the construction of words 'availed of. In a case of R.S. Mani v. A Palanimuthu Pillai and Anr. reported in AIR 1967 Mad 16 . the word 'avail' has been interpreted in paragraph-6 as under: 6. Now, so far as the word "avail" is concerned, in Funk and Wanall's Dictionary "availed oneself of is stated to mean "to take advantage of; utilize". The meaning giving in Oxford Dictionary is also to the same effect. Webster's Dictionary makes "avail" synonymous with benefit 'profit', 'used' and 'utility'. the word 'avail' has been interpreted in paragraph-6 as under: 6. Now, so far as the word "avail" is concerned, in Funk and Wanall's Dictionary "availed oneself of is stated to mean "to take advantage of; utilize". The meaning giving in Oxford Dictionary is also to the same effect. Webster's Dictionary makes "avail" synonymous with benefit 'profit', 'used' and 'utility'. A person can be stated to have availed himself of something only if he had taken advantage or profited by that thing or utilizes it to his benefit Applying the above interpretation of the words "availed of in the case in hand, it manifestly transpires that the meaning assigned to the word 'availed of occurred in Notifications No. 61/2002 CE and 42/2002 CE dated 23.12.2002 and the Eighth Schedule of the Finance Act is that the manufacturer must utilize the CENVAT Credit 'availed of for payment of Central Excise duty on the final products and pay the balance in cash which alone is the refund component. 53. On perusal of the materials available on record especially Notification No. 42/02dated 23.12.2002 by which a proviso has been added to Rule 3(3) of CENVAT Rules wherein it is provided that the CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used by the manufacturer of final products cleared after availing of all the exemptions under Notifications No. 32/99 and 33/99 both dated 08.07.1999 shall be utilized only for payment of duty on final products cleared after availing all the exemption under those Notifications. This proviso explicitly makes the intention of the legislature clear that manufacturers are required to first utilize the CENVAT Credit and then to pay the balance amount cash which is to be refunded. In view of the same, it can be held that there is no distinction between the two words 'taken' and 'availed of is pleaded on behalf of the Assessees. 54. Facts remain herein that admittedly though the Petitioners did not utilize the credit for paying the excise duty, they were allowed to availed of their credit and took the refund against the payment under Notifications No. 32/99-CE and 33/99-CE and the Assessees appeared to have taken full advantage of the lacuna of law and got some unintended benefits. Therefore, it appears that as per the legislation intent, the use of words 'taken' or 'availed of does not make any distinction. Therefore, it appears that as per the legislation intent, the use of words 'taken' or 'availed of does not make any distinction. The intent and purport of the amended Notifications were to ensure manufacturer to first utilize the CENVAT Credit and then to pay balance amount to be refunded later on. 55. In the premises aforesaid, there is no hesitation on the part of this Court to hold that there is no ambiguity or confusion as regards the use of words 'availed of by which Petitioners can take advantage of utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of any duty of excise on any final product. 56. Accordingly, the considered view of this Court is that the excess refund availed by the Petitioners needs to be recovered and this Court is in full agreement with the findings arrived at by the revenue authorities in passing the impugned orders. 57. In view of the above views and findings, this Court is not willing to burden this judgment by further elaborate analysis of those judicial decisions relied upon by the counsel for the revenue on the point of purposive interpretation. Conclusion: 58. For the foregoing reasons, observations and discussions, this Court does find that this host of writ petitions is bereft of any merit. 59. In the result, all these writ petitions fail and stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In favour of Department