ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh R.Sharma for the appellant. 2. By this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 , the appellant Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad (For short “the Tribunal”) in Excise Appeal No.10073 of 2023 and Final Order No.FO/A/11362/2024-EX(DB) 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent manufactured only mango pulp based juice called Maza and Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh in glass bottles using the old bottle line and availed benefit of exemption of Notification NO.3/2006-CE dated 10.03.2006 under Entry No.32. 4. The respondent assessee received capital goods in its factory during the period 13.10.2011 to 28.02.2011 and started installing gradually the capital goods which was used for manufacturing fruit pulp of juice based drinks namely Maaza, Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh and Minute Made Pulpy Orange in PET bottles. Such finished goods manufactured by the assessee became dutiable with effect from 01.3.2011 at the rate of 5% under Notification No.02/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 which was being cleared by the respondent assessee. 5. On the capital goods which was installed by the respondent assessee, trial production of finished goods in PET bottles started on 14.03.2011 and the respondent assessee availed the CENVAT credit on such capital goods amounting to Rs.5,01,57,998/- after successful trial production and thereafter commercial production commenced on 29.03.2011 with clearance and closing balance of two cases and 5862 cases respectively. 6. It also appears that the respondent sold four cases on 30.03.2011 and 10 cases on 31.03.2011. Thereafter balance cenvat credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 3,58,43,451/- was availed on the input services during March 2011 to February 2012 and also the credit on input services were availed during March, 2011 to February 2012 amounting to Rs.19,53,402/- by the respondent assessee. 7. A show cause notice was issued on 30.03.2012 by the department alleging that the eligibility of cenvat credit on capital goods should be taken on the date of receipt of capital goods and since on the date of receipt of capital goods, the final product manufactured on such capital goods was exempted, it was construed that such capital goods were used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods. 8. 8. The respondent assessee in its reply submitted that Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that no cenvat credit shall be provided on capital goods which are used exclusively on the manufacture of exempted goods and the date of eligibility should be taken on the date of start of use of the capital goods and not on the date of receipt of capital goods in the factory. 9. Rejecting such contention, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by order-in-original dated 21.03.2013. 10. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 08.03.2022 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verification as to whether from the date of using the capital goods, the finished products manufactured were dutiable or not. 11. The adjudicating authority by order dated 18.10.2022 once again confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. Being aggrieved the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the order dated 08.03.2022 by which the remand was made arrived at the following findings of fact: “From the above order it can be seen that the legal issue that in given case whether the date of eligibility of CENVAT Credit has to be reckoned on the basis of date of receipt of capital goods or the date of commencement of production as has been observed by the Tribunal is absolutely clear that the eligibility of credit on capital goods has to be taken as on date of start of production, particularly for the reason that since provision of Rule 6. (4) provides the relevant date related to manufacture of finished goods either exempted or dutiable therefore, irrespective of any date of receipt or installation of capital goods, for the purpose of Rule 6(4) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 the date of production of the goods has to be taken that whether on that date finished goods were dutiable or exempted. Therefore on that point the issue stand settled by this Tribunal in this case itself. The Adjudicating Authority was having limited scope to verify the date of commencement production and the status of exemption or dutiable of the said goods as on date of production. Therefore on that point the issue stand settled by this Tribunal in this case itself. The Adjudicating Authority was having limited scope to verify the date of commencement production and the status of exemption or dutiable of the said goods as on date of production. Therefore, the order of the Adjudicating Authority in the remand proceeding visiting to the legal issue is absolutely illegal and incorrect particularly for the reason that the revenue has not challenged the views taken by this Tribunal in. the order dated 08.03.2022. Having said so, now we examine the fact for which the matter was remanded. We find that the appellant in their daily production record first time shown production of Maaza pet 600 ML bottles on 29.03.2011 before that in the months of January and February, 2011, the production of Maaza RGB was shown as goods produced which are not manufactured on the capital goods in question as the capital goods in the present case are meant for production of Maaza in PET bottles. Therefore, it is quite evident from the records produced by the appellant that the goods were manufactured on the capital goods meant for manufacture of Maaza pet bottle only from 29.03.2011 on that date the finished goods was admittedly dutiable as the exemption earlier provided for such final product was done away. With this fact vis-a-vis the observation made in this Tribunal's earlier order dated 08.03.2022, we are of the considered view that appellant are eligible for CENVAT Credit. All the Judgments relied upon by the revenue are not relevant to the facts of the present case. Therefore, such Judgments are distinguishable. In view of our above observation and finding and also in view of the observation made in earlier order 08.03.2022, we hold that appellant are legally entitled for the CENVAT Credit on the capital goods in terms of provision Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 .” 12. Thus on perusal of the above finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it appears that the respondent assessee commenced its daily production of 600ML bottles on 29.03.2011 and before that in the months of January and February, 2011, production of Maaza RGB was shown as goods produced which are not manufactured on the capital goods in question as the capital goods in the present case were meant for production of Maaza in PET bottles. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence produced on record by the respondent assessee that goods were manufactured on the capital goods meant for manufacture of Maaza PET bottles only from 29.03.2011 and on that date, finished goods were admittedly dutiable as exemption earlier provided on such final products was done away. Admittedly the capital goods were utilised for the purpose of production of products of respondent assessee which were dutiable after 01.03.2011. 13. In view of such factual findings arrived at by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no question of law much-less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal which requires any interference by this Court. 14. The appeal therefore, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.