https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352686 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. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352686 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352686