COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABADversusM/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI

           COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,                             A
                           AU RANG ABAD
                                 v.
                      M/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI

                              FEBRUARY 17, 2005
                                                                                   B
      [S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]


           Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 35UCentral Excise Tariff Act, 1985;
     Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06, Chapter Note-4 to Chapter 59 and Note-4      C
     to Section XI of the Act :

           Classification-Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric-Levy of excise duty under
     Tariff Headings 59.02 or 59.06-Held: In view of reasons recorded in the
     connected case viz. Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, appeals
     are remitted to Commissioner, Revenue for a fresh disposal in accordance      D
     with law.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2002.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.2001 of the Central Excise,
     Customs and Gold (Control} Appellate Tribunal, West Reginal Bench at          E
     Mumbai in A. No. C/433/2001-Mum in F.O. No. C-1/3020 of 2001-WZB.

          AND

          Civil Appeal No. 1612 of 2003.

           R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Dutta, Hemant Sharma,     F
     P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.

           Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal and Rajan Narain
     for the Respondent.
                                                                                   G
__
,
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner
     of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, reported in (2005) l Scale 554, both these
     Civil Appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric
                                         l~                                        H
    166                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A are allowed; the impugned-judgments and orders of the Tribunal as well as
   of the Commissioner are set aside; and these appeals are remitted to the
   Commissioner, Mumbai, for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. All
   contentions on both sides-are kept open:

           In the facts and circumstances.of-this case, there will be no order as to
B costs.
    S.K.S.                                                        Appeals allowed.