COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD versus M/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI on 17 February 2005

, __

A

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, 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.

Appeals allowed.

S.K.S.