2004 (1) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 301/2003, dated 24-6-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed Cenvat Credit to M/s. M.P. Telelinks Ltd. 2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture Polyethylene insulated Jelly filled telephone cables; that they had procured readymade armoured or unarmoured cables as input from various manufacturers and availed Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... process undertaken by the Respondents did not amount to manufacture they were not eligible to take the Cenvat credit. 3. Countering the arguments Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Department has collected the Central Excise duty at the time of clearance of these cables and if the processes undertaken by them do not amount to manufacture the question of levying and collecting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y them. The second fact which is not disputed by the Revenue is that when the cables were removed by the Respondents after undertaking the process the duty liability was discharged. If the Department levies and collects the Central Excise duty on the goods removed from the factory they cannot claim for the purpose of allowing the Cenvat credit that the process of manufacture had not taken place. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X