Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. Invoking the provisions of Section, 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity the Act), the revenue has directed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 24-11- 2004 (Annexure A2) [2005 (180) E.L.T. 99 (Tri.-Del.)] , vide which the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted the appeal of the respondent-assessee M/s. J.B. Fashions Limited (for short the assessee ). 2. the essential facts, relevant for disposal of present appeal and emanating from the record, are that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Zipper rolls and is registered with the Central Excise Department. The Central- Excise Officers of Arni Evasion Branch visited and checked the factory premises of the assessee on 14-12-2001. The revenue claimed that during the course of checking, inter alia , it revealed that the assessee had wrongly availed the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices of the duty paid on partially oriented yarn. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee, as to why the demand of duty be not raised, Cenvat credit alongwith interest be not recovered and penalty action be not taken under Sections 11AC & 38-A of the Act read with Rule 57AH of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 , Rule 173Q read with Rule 25 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) and Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the Cenvat Rules). 3. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the assessee filed the reply and explained that it was engaged in manufacture of Zip Fasteners and in order to manufacture the final products, it required certain inputs to be used within the factory or otherwise to manufacture the intermediate excisable goods, which are further used in its factory for manufacture of final products and Rule 57AB of the Rules allows the duty (Cenvat credit) in respect of inputs which are to be used in manufacture of final product. According to the assessee, it has purchased the partially oriented yarn as an input to manufacture the intermediate product, which in turn, is used to manufacture Zip Fasteners in its factory and has legally and rightly claimed the Cenvat credit. According to the assessee, it has purchased the partially oriented yarn as an input to manufacture the intermediate product, which in turn, is used to manufacture Zip Fasteners in its factory and has legally and rightly claimed the Cenvat credit. It will not be out of place to mention here that the assessee stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the show cause notice and prayed for its reversal. 4. The detailed explanation put forth by the assessee did not find favour and the Commissioner, Central Excise disallowed the Modvat/Cenvat credit, ordered its recovery alongwith interest, confirmed the demand of duty of shortage of Cenvat raw material imposed the penalty under the Cenvat Rules, vide impugned order dated 5-8-2004 (Annexure A1). 5. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure A1), the assessee filed the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was accepted vide impugned order (Annexure A2). 6. The revenue did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure A2) and filed the present appeal, which was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law :- Whether the CESTAT is correct in interpreting Rule 57(AB)(2)(c) while holding that the manufacturer-.is] not an independent processors and allowing them CENVAT credit following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Olympic Petro Products v. CCE - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 490 which is contrary tdthe provisions of Rule 57(AB)(2) (c)? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of this case with their valuable assistance, we are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order (Annexure. A2). 8. The main-contention of the learned counsel for the revenue that since the assessee used the texturised yarn of polysters manufactured by an independent texturiser as it was not having the facility in its factory for manufacture of partially oriented yarn of polysters, so, it (assessee) was not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit in respect of such inputs, in view of Rule 3(6)(d) of the Cenvat Rules, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. No doubt, Rule 3(6)(d) provides that the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs shall not be allowed in respect of texturised yarn of polysters manufactured by an independent texturiser, who does not have the facility in his factory for manufacture of partially oriented yarn of polysters falling under the indicated :category but the same would not come to the rescue of the revenue, in this relevant connection. 9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the assessee is manufacturer of final product of Zipper rolls and Fasteners. During the process of manufacture of said Zipper Fasteners, the assessee is required to send certain inputs to the job worker for intermediate job processing, which are further used in its factory for manufacture of final product of Zipper Fasteners. Meaning thereby, the assessee is neither clearing the texturised yarn nor it is texturising the partially oriented yarn. It provides certain inputs for intermediate job process to job worker and after texturising the same, the inputs were received by the assessee in its factory for further use in the manufacture of final product (Zipper rolls), which were cleared on payment of duty. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be said that the assessee is an independent texturiser or cleared the texturised yarn at concessional rate of duty, as urged on behalf of the revenue. 10. On the contrary, the argument of learned counsel that the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit as contemplated under the Cenvat scheme, has considerable force. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Rules postulate that a manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the duty/additional duty of excise specified therein, including the said duties paid on any inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate products by a job worker availing the benefit of exemption specified in the notification and received by the manufacturer for use in, or in relation to the manufacture of final products. 11. Rule 3(2)further posits that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs lying in stock or in process or inputs contained in the final products lying in stock on the date on which any-goods cease to be exempted goods or any goods become excisable.  12.  12. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in case Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Ralson India Limited - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 759 (P&H) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 505 (P&H), has held that since the factum of duty paid character of the inputs and their receipt/utilization in the manufacture of final product have not been disputed, so, the requisite condition contemplated in the modvat credit scheme was admissible. It was also ruled that being a beneficial legislation, its object of input duty relief to a manufacturer should not be defeated on a technical and strict interpretation of the Rules governing modvat. 13. It is not a matter of dispute that the assessee has already paid the duty of inputs used in manufacture of final products i.e. Zipper rolls, which are also duty paid. Once the factum of duty paid character of the inputs and their receipt/utilization in manufacture of final products in the factory of the assessee is proved and requisite conditions contemplated in the Cenvat credit scheme are fulfilled, in that eventuality, the benefit of Cenvat credit cannot be denied to it (assessee). Hence, the contrary argument of learned counsel for the revenue  stricto-sensu  deserve to be and are hereby repelled. 14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the assessee is held entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the inputs sent for intermediate job to the job worker, which were received in its factory for manufacture of final product or Zipper rolls, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Thus, the question of law raised in this appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the-revenue. 15. For the reasons recorded above, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.