Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 27 -4 -2011 [ : 2011 (271) E.L.T. 565 (Tribunal)]. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that appellant had a factory in Faridabad and in the month of May, 2007 they shifted the factory from Faridabad to Roorkee -Haridwar (Uttrakhand). The appellant did not clear the capital goods under the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for brevity 'the Rules') by reversing applicable Cenvat credit. Therefore, show -cause notice was issued demanding of amount as per Rule 3(5) of the Rules.
(2.) MR . Surjeet Bhadu, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that as per Rule 10 of the Rules, appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on account of shifting of entire unit from Faridabad (Haryana) to Roorkee (Uttrakhand). It is not disputed that factory at Roorkee (Uttrakhand) was not operating under Cenvat Scheme. Rule 10 can only be invoked when manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site and the Cenvat Scheme is applicable in the transferee area. Since factory at Roorkee was not operating under Cenvat Scheme, therefore, finding of the learned Tribunal that in the present case no transfer of credit was possible because the factory at Roorkee was not operating under Cenvat Scheme; Rule 10 cannot be read as a provision enabling removal of capital goods from one factory of a manufacturer to another factory of the manufacturer where Cenvat Scheme is not applicable, seems to be justified. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned order. Appeal is devoid of merit. Hence is dismissed.;