Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This appeal filed by the appellant-revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act), challenges order dated 15-1-2004, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, the Tribunal). It has been claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court :- Whether credit of duty is admissible to the inputs in the present case in terms of erstwhile Rule 57C and 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 , used in both dutiable as well as exempted goods when no separate account has been maintained nor 8% duty reversed in respect of clearances of exempted goods? 2. Facts of the case may first be noticed. M/s Super Auto India Ltd., Faridabad (for brevity, the respondent- assessee) is registered with Central Excise Department, having Registration Certificate No. 18/92, dated 19-6- 2002 and engaged in the manufacture of Pressure Die Cast Components that fall under Central Excise Tariff Chapter headings 85 and 87 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent-assessee used to manufacture their goods on job work basis under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity, the Rules). It also used to pay full rate of duty leviable on their final product and to avail facility of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the production of final product. 3. On 29-3-2000, the Preventive Officers of the department during the course of scrutiny of Central Excise records found that the respondent-assessee was availing Modvat credit of furnace oil and the same was being used in the production of both their finished/final products as well as in the production of job work articles of others on which Central Excise duty was not paid by them. The ratio of utilization of furnace oil in the production of dutiable and non-dutiable products worked out to be 39.04% : 60.96%. The goods were produced using said furnace oil on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty and without reversing proportionate amount of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 57CC/57AD of the Rules. The respondent-assessee was issued two demand show cause notices dated 31-3-2000, raising demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,33,040/- and Rs. 5,33,561.32 paise, under Rule 57-I/57AH and Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. The respondent-assessee was issued two demand show cause notices dated 31-3-2000, raising demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,33,040/- and Rs. 5,33,561.32 paise, under Rule 57-I/57AH and Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. The aforementioned demands were confirmed and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each case was also imposed, vide orders-in-original dated 28-2-2002, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-IV, Faridabad-cum-Adjudicating Authority (P-1 & P-2 respectively). 4. The respondent-assessee challenged Orders-in-original dated 28-2-2002 before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 23-5-2002, directed for pre-deposit of Rs. 11,66,601/- under Section 35F of the Act as a pre-condition for admission of appeals. The appeals were subsequently dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal dated 23- 7-2002 because the respondent-assessee failed to comply with order dated 23-5-2002 and did not deposit Rs. 11,66,601/- within stipulated period of 30 days (P-3). 5. The respondent-assessee then filed further appeals and the Tribunal allowed the stay application of the respondent-assessee vide its order dated 24-10-2002 and after relying upon its earlier judgments in various cases, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for deciding the same on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondent- assessee by following various judgments of the Tribunal, vide his order dated 30-6-2003 (P-4). 6. The appellant-revenue then filed further appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dismissed the same by observing as under :- ......The respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indore Steel & Iron Mills Limited v. CCE, Indore , 2002 (51) RLT 174 = 2002 (147) E.L.T. 611 (Tribunal). We find that the Revenue wants to deny the Modvat credit in respect of furnace oil which is used as fuel only on the ground that the respondents also manufacturing (manufacture?) goods on job work basis and were clearing the goods under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Rules. This issue is covered by the above decision of the Tribunal, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (emphasis added) 7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (emphasis added) 7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. At the outset we deem it just and appropriate to refer the provisions of Rule 57C(2) & (3) and Rule 57CC(1) & (9) of the Rules, which have direct bearing on the controversy involved in the present appeal and the same reads as under :- 57C. Credit of duty not to be allowed if final products are exempt.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and he is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in the manufacture of any other final product which is not chargeable to duty in the same factory, the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be satisfied only when the manufacturer follows the procedure prescribed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC or the provisions of sub-rule (9) of that Rule are complied with. (3) Sub-rule (2) shall not apply to inputs intended to be used as fuel. x xx x xxx xxx xxx 57CC. Adjustment of credit on inputs used in exempted final products or maintenance of separate inventory and accounts of inputs by the manufacturer.- (1) Where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other final product which is not chargeable to duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs (other than inputs used as fuel) which is used or ordinarily used in or in relation to the manufacture of both the aforesaid categories of final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the said final products or not, the manufacturer shall, unless the provisions of sub-rule (9) are complied with, pay an amount equal to eight per cent of the price (excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods) of the second category of final products charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (9) In respect of inputs (other than inputs used as fuel) which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of any goods, which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to Nil rate of duty, the manufacturer shall maintain separate inventory and accounts of the receipt and use of inputs for the aforesaid purpose and shall not take credit of the specified duty paid on such inputs. (emphasis added) 8 A conjoint reading of sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 57C of the Rules shows that in cases where inputs are intended to be used as fuel, the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC of the Rules are not to apply. However, in other cases where a manufacturer of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other final product that is not chargeable to duty the manufacturer in order to take credit has to comply with sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC of the Rules. It envisages that separate inventory/accounts are required to be maintained in respect of the receipt and use of inputs for the aforesaid purpose. Such a manufacturer is restrained from taking credit of the specified duty paid on such items. 9. It is, thus, clear that the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57C and sub-rule (1) and (9) of Rule 57CC of the Rules do not apply to inputs intended to be used as fuel. In the instant case, there is categorical finding that furnace oil is used as fuel only. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is unassailable and the respondent-assessee has been rightly held to be entitled to Modvat Credit. Therefore, the question of law is decided against the revenue by confining it to cases where the input is intended to be used as fuel as the facts in present case reveal. 10. For the aforementioned reasons the question of law is decided against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.