Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. Chennai
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1676-1678 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.98 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Misc. O.Nos. 524-525/98, Stay O.No. 890/98, F.O. Nos. 1683-1685/98 in E/Stay/574 and E/861/98, A.No. E/COD/686 and 687/98 and E/1837 and 1838 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.98 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Misc. O.Nos. 524-525/98, Stay O.No. 890/98, F.O. Nos. 1683-1685/98 in E/Stay/574 and E/861/98, A.No. E/COD/686 and 687/98 and E/1837 and 1838 of 1998)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Respondent: M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. Chennai
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1676-1678 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.98 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Misc. O.Nos. 524-525/98, Stay O.No. 890/98, F.O. Nos. 1683-1685/98 in E/Stay/574 and E/861/98, A.No. E/COD/686 and 687/98 and E/1837 and 1838 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.98 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Misc. O.Nos. 524-525/98, Stay O.No. 890/98, F.O. Nos. 1683-1685/98 in E/Stay/574 and E/861/98, A.No. E/COD/686 and 687/98 and E/1837 and 1838 of 1998)
Judges: S.N. VARIAVA, Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 25, 2005
Appearances:
Mr. R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Mr. A. Subba Rao, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Mr. B.Krishna Prasad, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Mr. P. Nagesh, Mr. Annang Bhattacharya, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Mr. P. Nagesh, Mr. Annang Bhattacharya, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06 – Central excise – Classification of goods for levy of excise duty – Tyre manufacturing – Dipped tyre cord fabric used for manufacturing tyres – Whether the dipped tyre cord fabric is a high tenacity yarn classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.02 or it is a rubberized textile fabric covered by Tariff Heading 59.06. Matter remitted to Adjudicating Authority with a direction to determine whether dipped tyre cord fabric is an independent product in terms of manufacture and marketability.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06 – Central excise – Classification of goods for levy of excise duty – Tyre manufacturing – Dipped tyre cord fabric used for manufacturing tyres – Whether the dipped tyre cord fabric is a high tenacity yarn classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.02 or it is a rubberized textile fabric covered by Tariff Heading 59.06. Matter remitted to Adjudicating Authority with a direction to determine whether dipped tyre cord fabric is an independent product in terms of manufacture and marketability.
JUDGEMENT:
KAPADIA, J.
1. For the reasons given in our decision in the conjoint civil appeals, entitled Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1476 of 1999 etc.), both these civil appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric are also 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, Chennai for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.
2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
1. For the reasons given in our decision in the conjoint civil appeals, entitled Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1476 of 1999 etc.), both these civil appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric are also 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, Chennai for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.
2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
