Tribunal grants CENVAT credit on capital goods for dutiable items, deems exported goods non-exempted.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing CENVAT credit on capital goods used for dutiable goods within the stipulated period and considering goods exported under bond as non-exempted. The appeal was granted, providing necessary relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the manufacture of exempted goods.
2. Whether goods exported under bond can be considered exempted goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing "Polyester Viscose Yarn," who installed capital goods in their factory during the financial year 2016-17. While partly clearing final products availing exemption, some goods were exported under bond. A show cause notice was issued questioning the credit availed by the appellant. The original authority dropped the notice, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside, demanding the duty. The appellant argued that as per Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit rules, credit of capital goods is allowable if used for dutiable goods within two years of installation, citing relevant case laws. The Commissioner contended that duty payment in 2017-18 was irrelevant for the 2016-17 period, relying on outdated case laws. The Tribunal held that the credit was admissible as the capital goods were used for dutiable goods within the stipulated period, overturning the Commissioner's decision.

2. The Tribunal also addressed whether goods exported under bond could be considered exempted goods. The appellant argued that as goods were exported under bond during 2016-17, they should not be treated as exempted. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that the amended rule's provisions were clear, and the conditions were met, making the credit admissible. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the CENVAT credit on capital goods used for dutiable goods within the stipulated period and considering goods exported under bond as non-exempted, thereby granting the appeal and providing necessary relief.

---