JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—Sri Rajesh Chander Kumar is directed to take notice for respondent in C.E.A. No. 16/2005. All these three references are at the instance of the revenue. 2. The question of law that is referred for consideration by the Tribunal reads as under:- Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing modvat credit taken under the head of Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Article) i.e. AED (T&TA) towards discharging Basic Excise Duty on the clearance of manufactured excisable goods in accordance with erstwhile Rules 57(a), 9(2), 57F(12) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 Notification No. 5/1994, dated 1-3-1994? 3. The assessee availed the credit of additional duty of central excise paid while clearing the final product for payment of basic excise duty. The authorities disallowed the said credit, issued a demand claiming excise duty, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal following its judgment in Modi Rubber case granted the benefit. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal contends that, the Notification No. 5/1994-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1994 dealing with the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that the credit of specified duty in so far as it relates to the additional duty of excise specified under (ii) above or the additional duty specified under (iii)(b) above, allowed in respect of inputs shall be utilised only towards payment of duty of excise leviable for the Additional Duties of Excise on the final products or, as the case may be, on the inputs, if such inputs are permitted to be cleared under Rule 57F of the said Rules. In other words he contends the credit of additional duty paid cannot be used to pay the basic duty of the finished product. 5. That was the position up to 1997. In other words he contends the credit of additional duty paid cannot be used to pay the basic duty of the finished product. 5. That was the position up to 1997. Rule 57F(12) was amended by inserting a proviso which reads as under :- Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained ion rule 57A and the notifications issued there under the credit of specified duty allowed in respect of any inputs may be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on any other final product, whether or not such inputs have actually been used in the manufacture of such other final product, if the said inputs have been received and used in the factory of production on or after the first day of March, 1997." 6. Therefore, by insertion of the said proviso, the effect of Rule 57A and the notification issued there under is clearly wiped out. It is no more the requirement of law that credit taken for additional duty paid should be utilized only for clearing the goods if additional duty is to be paid in respect of the said goods also. As is clear from the proviso not only such a duty could be used towards payment of basic excise duty even if the duty availed in respect of an input is not used in the manufacture of final product, the benefit is available to the manufacturer, the only condition being that inputs should have been received and used in the factory for production. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Hence, we answer the reference in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. All the references are answered accordingly. 7. In view of the reference being answered as aforesaid, C.E.A. No. 16/2005 is dismissed. Sri Rajesh Chander Kumar is permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondent in C.E.A. No. 16/2005 within four weeks.