JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [ 2009 (239) E.L.T. 130 (Tri.-Bang.)], which has upheld the order of the Appellate Authority holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of unutilized credit, even though the inputs and capital goods were shifted to the new premises. The assessee M/s. Tata Auto Components Systems Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods. Their unit is situated at No. 18/1 A3, Nayanahalli, Mysore Road, Bangalore. They shifted the manufacturing activities to the new plant located at plot No. 28A, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore. They obtained new Central Excise Registration Certificate. The assessee transferred the balance amount of Cenvat Input Credit of Rs.2,86,552/- with Rs.5,730/- towards education cess. Cenvat capital goods credit and input Service tax credit and education cess were lying unutilized in their books of account at Nayandahalli to Bidadi Industrial Area. A show cause notice came to be issued on 12-9-2006 calling upon the Revenue to show cause as to why the Cenvat input credit should not be disallowed in terms of provision of Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and penalty should not be levied. In reply, the assessee informed that they have informed the department vide letter dated 28-12-2005 regarding shifting of their manufacturing activity from their old unit to their new unit situated at Bidadi Industrial Area. They also informed that the inputs, semi finished, capital goods will be transferred under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and under Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They further informed that all statutory records had been transferred to their new unit and surrendered their old Registration Certificate and also informed that they had Cenvat balance of Rs.2,86,552/- and Education Cess balance of Rs.5,730/-. They pointed out that the amount due in various heads. However, the Assessing Authority opined that if unutilized balance in Cenvat credit sought to be transferred to new premises is permitted, it will give double benefit to assessee. Therefore, it was held that the assessee is not entitled to the said benefit. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. However, the Assessing Authority opined that if unutilized balance in Cenvat credit sought to be transferred to new premises is permitted, it will give double benefit to assessee. Therefore, it was held that the assessee is not entitled to the said benefit. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. The Commissioner of Appeals on re-examination of the entire material on record categorically held that it is not the case of the department that inputs and capital goods were not shifted to new premises. In order-in-original, it is clearly admitted that the removal of inputs and capital goods to the new premises by following the proper procedure laid down under the Central Excise Rules, 2004 has been done. It is also not the case of department that on removal of inputs and capital goods as such, the assessee has not made/debited appropriate duty. For the unutilized balance in credit account, on such removal of inputs and capital goods to the new premises on payment of duty, the assessee is rightly eligible for the transfer of the balance to the new premises. For such transfers, no specific permission is needed from the department. Therefore, he set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority and granted the benefit. Hence, the Revenue challenged that order before the Tribunal, which has upheld the said order. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 2. Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reads as under : Rule 10. Transfer of CENVAT credit. - (1) If a manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site or the factory. I transferred on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory, then, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold merged, leased or amalgamated factory. (2) If a provider of output service shifts or transfers his business on account of change in ownership or on account of sale, merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the business to a joint venture with the specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such business, then, the provider of output service shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred, sold, merged, leased or amalgamated business. (3) The transfer of the CENVAT credit under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be allowed only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods is also transferred alongwith the factory or business premises to the new site or ownership and the inputs, or capital goods, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or as the case may be the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it very clear that if manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred factory. The said transfer is subject to the condition stipulated in Rule 10(3) of the Rules, which provides that such transfer is permitted only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods is also transferred alongwith the factory or business premises to the new site, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or as the case may be, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore once the aforesaid condition is satisfied, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit at the transfer site. In the light of the factual findings recorded in the proceedings by the Authorities that the credit has been availed of duly accounted to the satisfaction of the Authority, there is no case of double benefit as sought to be made out by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in setting aside the order and restoring the benefit to the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.