JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.— This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal 2008 (229) E.L.T. 78 (Tribunal) which has held that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the capital goods when admittedly it is not used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. 2. The Assessee - M/s. Rajashri Packagers Limited are engaged in the manufacture of refined vegetable oil and vanaspati by processing crude oil which are exempted from payment of excise duty. In the course of manufacture of vanaspati by-products emerge at different stages. These by-products are cleared on payment of duty. Certain capital goods were received which is utilized in the manufacture of these exempted goods and accordingly Cenvat Credit was taken. The revenue proceeded against the Assessee on the ground that these capital machineries were used in the plant which produces vanaspati, which is totally exempted. When the capital goods are used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods, no credit would be available in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 3. The Assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Authority after examining the matter held that the availment of credit cannot be denied as long as the new plant is in the same factory and is connected to the process which produces the edible goods at any stage. Accordingly, the demand was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal held that though the new plant came later, it is connected to the old plant and the entire process appears to be integrated. In that case, it would not be correct to isolate a piece of machinery and to hold the view, that at the final stage only, exempted product emerges and therefore the said machinery is exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted products. Once the new plant is connected to the old plant, the entire unit has to be looked upon as a whole in view of the fact that all these goods are used in the premises of the same factory. By-products emerge at various stages and these are cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, it was held that the capital goods are used exclusively for production of exempted goods and consequently the Assessee is entitled to the Cenvat Credit. By-products emerge at various stages and these are cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, it was held that the capital goods are used exclusively for production of exempted goods and consequently the Assessee is entitled to the Cenvat Credit. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order contends that, in view of the report of the original authority who visited the factory, saw with his eyes the manufacturing process and who has recorded a categorical finding that the exempted goods emerge by the exclusive use of the capital goods, the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal could not have ignored the said finding of fact and held that the Assessee was entitled to the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, he submits the impugned order requires to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Assessee supported the impugned order. 7. This appeal was admitted on 24-6-2010 to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on capital goods though Rule 6(4) of Rules is clear? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstance of the case the Tribunal is right in disbelieving the adjudicator's finding based on personal visit to the factory? (iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that Citation referred to by the Respondent Viz. Ruchi Health Products Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, 2007 (218) E.L.T. 716 (Tri.-Chennai) : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 330 (Tri.-Chennai) is applicable though facts of this case is different to that of the referred one? 8. From the material on record, it is clear that the Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of refined vegetable oil and vanaspati by processing crude oil and palm oil which are exempted from payment of excise duty. Even before the Appellate Authority as well as before us, the chart showing the various stages of manufacturing process is produced. It discloses that there are roughly 10 stages between the first stage of mixing crude oil with palm oil and the last product vanaspati coming out. It is not in dispute that all these processes are not conducted in the new machinery. It discloses that there are roughly 10 stages between the first stage of mixing crude oil with palm oil and the last product vanaspati coming out. It is not in dispute that all these processes are not conducted in the new machinery. Some of the processes are conducted in the old machinery in which time the by-products emerge after the partial processing of crude oil and palm oil in the old machinery which gets into the new machine. After several stages of process in the new machinery, the final product vanaspati emerges at the end. The assessing authority who visited the spot has not stated that the entire processing is done in the new machinery. From his own report it is clear a portion of the process takes place in the old machinery and the remaining portion takes place in the new machinery. In other words, from the stage of raw material being inducted into the machinery till the final product emerges, both the machineries are used. Without old machinery, by operating the new machinery alone this exempted goods of vanaspati cannot be manufactured. Similarly, by using the old machinery alone, without the aid and assistance of the new machinery, vanaspati cannot be manufactured. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, it is an integrated process where both the machineries are used and after several processes are carried out at various stages, the final product emerges. May be at the stage of the raw material being processed in the old machinery itself these by-products emerge which are dutiable. By that process it cannot be construed that no such by-product emerges when the process is conducted in the new machinery. The new machinery is exclusively used in the manufacture of the exempted vanaspati. As is clear from the material on record and the chart showing the various processes, we are satisfied that both the old and the new machinery are used in the manufacture of vanaspati and, therefore, it cannot be said that the new capital goods is exclusively used in the manufacture of vanaspati. As is clear from the material on record and the chart showing the various processes, we are satisfied that both the old and the new machinery are used in the manufacture of vanaspati and, therefore, it cannot be said that the new capital goods is exclusively used in the manufacture of vanaspati. In that connection it is useful to refer to the relevant Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under: No Cenvat Credit shall be allowed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services, other than the final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year. 9. Therefore, stress is on user of the capital goods exclusively in the manufacture of exempted "goods. The new capital goods in respect of which Cenvat Credit is claimed from the facts of the case it is clear is not exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The said machinery is used in the manufacture of exempted goods and only when several stages of the process of manufacture are undertaken in the old machinery and thereafter this new machinery plays its role and in the end, in the integrated manufacturing process the exempted goods i.e. vanaspati emerges as a product. The Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion to which they have come, it is based on legal evidence and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. All the substantial questions which are framed are answered against the revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.