TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sable goods and have been availing cenvat credit on duty paid inputs, capital goods and on the tax paid input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004). A special audit under Section 14AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 was conducted by the Department. It was noticed that the appellants were clearing the excisable goods without issuing invoices as required under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The excisable goods were rather got cleared on the internal document named as gate pass without preparing any commercial invoice or any excise invoice for such removal. The appellant therefore was alleged to be liable to pay Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,31,77,659/- on the goods cleared without payment of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in Commissioner Vs. Biharji Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (323) E.L.T. A23 (S.C.) • CC, CCE & ST, Ghaziabad Vs. Auto Gollon Industries Ltd. 2018 (360) E.L.T. 29 (All.) There is no evidence that the goods removed under the cover of gate pass cum challan were manufactured by the appellants and were liable to Central Excise duty in the hands of the appellants. Confirmation of demand is alleged to be wrong. The Adjudicating Authority below has also confirmed the demand qua the goods with respect to which no cenvat credit was availed by the appellants. Such goods were actually removed as waste and scrap. The demand therefore is not sustainable. Otherwise also, the onus of proving that assesse has availed cenvat credit i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctory premises, from one division/ plant to another, (e) Capital goods imported under EPCG sent for repairs. 6. During the special audit as was ordered under Section 14AA of the Excise Act, the Department noticed about appellants' clearing the above said goods without cover of excise invoices, resultantly, raised the impugned demand. Hence, the moot question to be adjudicated is as to whether the aforesaid goods are excisable or not whereupon the appellants were entitled to claim the cenvat credit. A part of the demand has already been dropped vide the Order under challenge. The Department is not in Appeal. Otherwise also, the demand as has been dropped is opined to have no infirmity. The Order under challenge to that extent is held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not treated as generated during the course of manufacture. It is appellants case that no cenvat credit was also availed on these goods. Department could not have proved otherwise. It becomes clear that note 8(a) of Section XV of Central Excise Tariff is not relevant to such operations and such items are not liable to duty even in accordance of Section 2(f) and Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order confirming this demand is therefore liable to be set aside. (ii) The goods sent and received by the appellant to/for job-work The said demand has been confirmed vide the Order under challenge for want of evidence for the goods to have been received back/ sent back within 180 days of re-sending / receiving them for the job-w....