CENVAT credit transfer requires shifting the factory itself, not merely relocating part of the manufacturing process.

Transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 8(1) was confined to cases where the factory itself was shifted or transferred; a partial relocation of manufacturing activity was not enough. The Bombay High Court noted that only the spinning section was moved, while the yarn continued to be sent back to the original unit for further manufacture, so the entire factory had not been transferred. As the factual arrangement covered only part of the manufacturing process, the provision and allied transfer rules were held inapplicable, and the claim for credit transfer was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was permissible when only one unit or part of the manufacturing activity was shifted and the entire factory was not transferred.

Analysis: Rule 8(1) permits transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit when a manufacturer shifts his factory to another site or when the factory is transferred on specified grounds. On a plain reading, the provision contemplates shifting of the factory as such, and not merely relocation of one segment of the manufacturing process. The factual record showed that only the spinning section was moved to Dhamni while the yarn produced there was still sent back to Dadar for manufacture of grey and processed fabric. The transfer therefore covered only a part of the manufacturing activity, not the whole factory. In these circumstances, Rule 8(1) and the allied provisions dealing with transfer of plant or factory were held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The claim for transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit was rejected and the appeal failed.

---