https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115366 Unutilised Modvat credit could be transferred to the same manufacturer's new factory site when the factory was shifted, even though Rule 57F(7) did not expressly refer to shifting. The provision was read as containing a gap because it covered transfer only on sale, merger, amalgamation or transfer to a joint venture, but not mere relocation. That omission was not treated as a valid basis to deny a substantive credit benefit, and the later wider wording in Rule 57F(20) supported that interpretation. The manufacturer was therefore entitled to carry forward and use the credit at the new site. en-us Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2012 10:18:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115366 Unutilised Modvat credit could be transferred to the same manufacturer's new factory site when the factory was shifted, even though Rule 57F(7) did not expressly refer to shifting. The provision was read as containing a gap because it covered transfer only on sale, merger, amalgamation or transfer to a joint venture, but not mere relocation. That omission was not treated as a valid basis to deny a substantive credit benefit, and the later wider wording in Rule 57F(20) supported that interpretation. The manufacturer was therefore entitled to carry forward and use the credit at the new site. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115366