https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773999 The appellant successfully challenged the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods under rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Court held that rule 6(4) only restricts credit where capital goods are used exclusively for exempted goods manufacture, not merely because exempted goods were cleared. The authorities failed to prove exclusive use despite appellant's evidence of manufacturing dutiable goods and exports. The Court emphasized that exported goods are not "exempted goods" under rule 2(d), making rule 6(4) inapplicable. Recovery of Rs. 16,05,559 and penalty were set aside as the revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving wrongful credit. The appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773999 The appellant successfully challenged the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods under rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Court held that rule 6(4) only restricts credit where capital goods are used exclusively for exempted goods manufacture, not merely because exempted goods were cleared. The authorities failed to prove exclusive use despite appellant's evidence of manufacturing dutiable goods and exports. The Court emphasized that exported goods are not "exempted goods" under rule 2(d), making rule 6(4) inapplicable. Recovery of Rs. 16,05,559 and penalty were set aside as the revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving wrongful credit. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773999