https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416194 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the transfer of 50% credit on capital goods from Mumbai to Surat without complying with Rule 10(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was valid. The tribunal determined that the appellant's action did not constitute a transfer of business ownership, as they had only relocated their office without changing the business constitution. It was clarified that Rule 10(2) applies to specific instances of business transfer due to ownership changes, which was not the case here. The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the original denial of credit. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416194 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the transfer of 50% credit on capital goods from Mumbai to Surat without complying with Rule 10(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was valid. The tribunal determined that the appellant's action did not constitute a transfer of business ownership, as they had only relocated their office without changing the business constitution. It was clarified that Rule 10(2) applies to specific instances of business transfer due to ownership changes, which was not the case here. The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the original denial of credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416194