Judgment :- (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.) 1. Though notice was duly served on the respondents, there is no representation either in person or through counsel. We therefore, proceed to decide this appeal on merits. 2. In this appeal, the question of law that arises for consideration is as follows:- "Whether the Honble CESTAT has committed an error of law in holding that the provision prevailent after 01.03.2002 and prior to 01.04.2000 would be deemed to be in operation during the period when Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) of CENVAT Rules 2001 was in force by relying upon Section 21 and 24 of the General Causes Act 1897." 3. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent was availing credit of CENVAT on Capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules 2001-2002. Such credit was availed by the first respondent based on duty paid documents in its favour on capital goods. The first respondent availed the entire credit of duty i.e., 100% on the capital goods in a sum of Rs.1,94,124/- instead of 50% of the said duty as has been provided under Rule 2(4)(a) of Cenvat Rules 2001. Such credit was taken on 25.07.2001. But transferred the goods by preparing a Central Excise invoice bearing No.4475 dated 29.09.2001 in favour of its Tatapuram unit in Cochin. 4. The assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority held that the first respondent should have taken only 50% of the duty paid in the financial year in which the capital goods were received and the balance could have been availed in any subsequent financial year on satisfaction of relevant Rule. The Tribunal however, held in the impugned order by taking note of the proviso added to Rule 2(4) of CENVAT Rules 2001, which came into effect after 01.03.2002 and by applying the provisions contained in Section 21 and 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the benefits which were made available after 01.03.2002 and prior to 01.04.2000 would be deemed to have been in operation during the interregnum period and therefore, the first respondent was entitled for availing 100% CENVAT credits. 5. 5. We heard Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant and having perused the order impugned as well as the earlier orders of the lower authorities and the relevant rule, we do not find any justification to sustain the order of the Tribunal. 6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Rule 4(2) (a) and (b) of CENVAT Rules 2001 can be usefully extracted, which reads as under:- "4(2)(a) The CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods received in a factory at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for a amount not exceeding fifty percent of the duty paid on such capital goods in the said financial year. (b)The balance CENVAT credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the factory of the manufacturer, if the capital goods other than components, spares and accessories, refractories and refractory materials and goods falling under heading No.68.02 and subheading No.6801.10 of the first schedule to the Tariff Act are in the possession and use of the manufacturer of final products in such subsequent year." 7. The assessment year was 2001-2002. Therefore, we are concerned with the Rule, which was prevailing as on 31.03.2001. It was true that the first respondent transferred the goods after taking the credit to its Tatapuram unit in Cochin by preparing a Central Excise invoice dated 29.09.2001. It also availed 100% credit on the capital goods on 25.07.2001. But, it was beyond any controversy that in the relevant assessment year, as per the prevailing Rule viz., Rule 4(2)(a)of CENVAT Rules, 2001, the first respondent was entitled to avail only 50% of the duty paid and he was entitled to avail CENVAT credit only to an extent of 50% of the duty paid on the capital goods in the said financial year viz., up to 31.03.2001. As stated earlier, the provision viz., the proviso to Rule 4(2) providing for availing for 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods subject to clearance of the goods in the same financial year came into force only with effect from 01.03.2002. It is stated that such a benefit was prevailing even prior to 01.04.2000. As stated earlier, the provision viz., the proviso to Rule 4(2) providing for availing for 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods subject to clearance of the goods in the same financial year came into force only with effect from 01.03.2002. It is stated that such a benefit was prevailing even prior to 01.04.2000. However, during the relevant financial year as the benefit extended was only to avail upto 50% of cenvat credit of the duty paid on such capital goods, we fail to understand, how there was any scope for invoking the provisions contained in Section 21 and 24 of General Clauses Act. In fact, under Section 38(A) of the Central Exercise Act, it is specifically provided as under:- "38A. Effect of amendments, etc., of rules, notifications or order:- Where any rule, notification or order made or issued under this Act or any notification or order issued under such rule, is amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded, then, unless a different intention appears, such amendment, repeal, supersession of rescinding shall not- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding takes effect ; or (b) affect the previous operation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded or anything duly done or suffered thereunder ; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under or in violation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded ; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the rule, notification or order, as the case may be, had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded." 8. Therefore, when the provision contained in the Central Excise Act itself viz., Section 38 A specifically stipulates as to the applicability of the provisions as they were prevailing on the relevant date, there was no scope to invoke Section 21 and 24 of the General Clauses Act for the purpose of interpretation of Rule 4(2) of CENVAT Rules 2001. In this respect, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (119)E.L.T.257 (S.C.) KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD VS UNION OF INDIA. The relevant part contained in paragraph 33 can be usefully referred to which reads as under:- ".........33. The Full Bench appears to have lost sight of the position that all the relevant terms ie., Central Act, Enactment Regulation, and Rule are defined in sub-section 3 (7), 3(19), 3(50) and 3(51) respectively of the General Clauses Act. When the term Central Act or Regulation or Rule is used in that Act reference has to be made to the definition of that term in the statute. It is not possible nor permissible to give a meaning to any of the terms different from the definition. It is manifest that each term has a distinct and separate meaning attributed to it for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, when the question to be considered is whether a particular provision of the Act applies in a case then the clear and unambiguous language of that provision has to be given its true meaning and import. ....... ........37. In the case in hand Rule 10 or Rule 10A is neither a "Central Act" nor a "Regulation" as defined in the Act. It may be a Rule under Section 3(15) of the Act. Section 6 is applicable where any Central Act or Regulation made after commencement of the General Clauses Act repeals any enactment. It is not applicable in the case of omission of a "Rule". ......." 9. Having regard to such categoric pronouncements and specific statutory provisions of Rule 4 of CENVAT Rules, 2001, which provide for the extent to which the CENVAT credit can be availed, we are not in a position to approve the approach of the Tribunal in having granted the relief in excess of what has been provided under the relevant rule viz., Rule 4(2) of CENVAT Rules 2001.