conformity of transfer of credit in accordance with rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. From our perusal of the records, it would appear that the appellant, as well as the adjudicating authority, have set out their relative positions in mutually exclusively spheres owing to which the recovery of credit of ₹ 1,06,54,815, along with interest thereon under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for allegedly wrongful availment and imposition of penalty of like amount under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, determined on the finding that the said provision had been utilized as a ploy to avail credit even after the manufacturing operations had shifted to plot no. A-258, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape from A-421, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai, is countered with the contention that the error therein has its origin in overlooking of fact that these inputs/capital goods had been despatched to the old address after the shift. It is common ground that the appellant had shifted their operations from one premises to another under intimation to jurisdictional central excise authorities. It is also common ground that unutilized credit was legally transferrable, alongside the shift, for utilization towards discharge of duty liability on future clearance of goods manufactured at the new premises.
