TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugated cartons and boxes etc. Due to certain contingencies in the business, the appellants leased out their factory building along with the machinery installed in the factory to M/s Jaishree cartons, (hereinafter referred to as lessee) by leave and license agreement date 14.04.2009. 2. The appellants had stock of raw materials in the form of kraft paper and also WIP (i.e partially processed cartons and boxes) which were also transferred to the lessee by raising sale bills, though there was no physical removal of inputs in the form of raw materials and WIP. The Appellant has also given a letter to the jurisdictional authorities of their intention to transfer the stock of inputs as well as WIP without payment of duty or reversal of credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the order of adjudication was confirmed. Hence the present appeal. 4. The appellant was represented by Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Consultant and the Respondent was represented by Ms.IndiraSisupal, learned A.R. (AC). 5. The consultant submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in his conclusion that Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules which provides for transfer of inputs to another person without any requirement of reversal of credit would be applicable only in those cases of transfer of factory along with transfer of liability; that Rule 10(1) includes transfer of factory by a manufacturer to another site ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs in the order in appeal and further placed reliance on the decisions in Majestic Auto Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, reported in 2004 (173) ELT 145; Yee Kay Technocrat (P) Limited v. CCE, reported in 2013 (292) ELT 48; Pure Drinks Limited vs. Union of India, reported in 2012 (281) ELT 51 (Del) 7. Heard both sides. The issue involved is as to whether the transfer of unutilized credit by the appellant who is the lessor, on lease of capital goods and factory building and on sale of inputs is in order. In the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellant have sold the inputs as such and at the same time the factory and capital goods have been let on lease. In this scenario, the question is as to whether the trans....