Holding

The product’s classification hinges on the predominance of rubber as stipulated in Note‑4 of Chapter 59 and Section XI, and therefore Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric cannot be placed under heading 59.02 but must be assessed afresh under heading 59.06.

Summary

M.R.F. Ltd. manufactures tyres and uses grey tyre‑cord fabric that is dipped in a latex solution before being incorporated into tyres. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued show‑cause notices alleging that the dipped tyre‑cord fabric was a separate excisable product falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 59.02 (high‑tenacity yarn) and demanded additional duty. The Tribunal classified the product under Heading 59.06 (rubberised textile fabrics) and set aside the Commissioner’s orders. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the decisive factor is the rubber content of the product as prescribed in Note‑4 of Chapter 59 and Section XI; the Tribunal erred in equating the dipped fabric with rubberised fabric and failed to examine the product’s independence and marketability. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s and Commissioner’s determinations and remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Adjudication) for a fresh classification in accordance with the law.

Issues considered

The correct classification of Dipped Nylon Tyre Cord Warp Sheet under the Central Excise Tariff Act – whether it falls under Heading 59.02 (high‑tenacity yarn) or Heading 59.06 (rubberised textile fabrics).
Whether the product is an independent, marketable article of manufacture for excise purposes.
Whether the Tribunal erred in treating the dipped fabric as identical to rubberised tyre‑cord fabric.
Whether the adjudicating authority must consider Note‑4 of Chapter 59 and Note‑4 of Section XI in determining classification.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 35
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985s. Note‑4 of Chapter 59, s. Note‑4 of Section XI, s. Tariff Headings 59.02, 59.06

Subjects

classificationcentral excisetariff headingrubberised textile fabrichigh tenacity yarnmarketabilityadjudicating authorityNote‑4product identity

Judgment

A ""'
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND CHENNAI
v.
M.R.F. LTD., CHENNAI

JANUARY 25, 2005
B
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 35/UCentral 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: Neither did the Tribunal examine the
scope of Tariff Heading 59.02 nor did the assessing/adjudicating authority
examine the matter in the light of Note-4 to Chapter 59 to ascertain rubber
D content in the product to determine the classifiability of the product-Since
Supreme Court in a similar matter held that the product in question is
classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.02, it is no more res-integra-Tribuna/
was wrong in equating the product as Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric-The
product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 59. 06-Matters remitted to
E Department to determine excisability and classification of the product afresh
in accordance with law.

The question which arose for determination in these appeals was as
to whether Dipped Nylon Tyre Cord Warp Sheet was a High Tenacity
Yarn in terms of Tariff Heading 59.02 of the Excise Tariff Act.
F
It was contended by the Revenue that Grey Tyre Cord Fabric after
dipping was classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.02 as Processed Tyre
Fabric; that in terms of Tariff Heading 59.06, Rubberised Textile Fabric
other than those falling under Tariff Heading 59.02 alone would fall under
Tariff Heading 59.05; thus, Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric would fall under
G Tariff Heading 59.02; that as per rule (I) of the Interpretation Rules
appended to the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, classification
of the product has to be decided according to the terms of the Heading;
Since Heading 59.02 covered Tyre Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn,
..
the product was rightly classified by the Department under Tariff Heading
H 814
C.C.E. v. M.R.f. LTD. 815

59.02; and that the Tribunal has not examined the "process of dipping" A
and it has merely followed the previous judgments which do not have any
application to the product in question.

Assessee submitted that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was not an
independent product in terms of manufacture and marketability; that the
assessee did not manufacture the product; that there is no evidence of the B
product being marketable; that the base fabric after going through the
process of dipping loses its identity and becomes a different product
commercially; that the product under Chapter Heading 59.02 is the basic
product and when dipped it gets shifted from textile to rubber; that in
the show-cause notices, there was no allegation to the effect that the C
product was marketable; and that the product in question was classifiable
under Chapter Heading 59.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as held
by this Court in the cases of Falcon Tyres and Vikran Tyres.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. It is the rubber content of the product, which is the main
determinative test to decide whether Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric is
classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.02 or 59.05 (now 59.06) of the
Excise Tariff Acts. To be categorized as Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric,
the product must have pre-dominance of rubber in proportion to fabric.
It is for this reason that Note-4 of Chapter 59 of the Act indicates the E
requisite parameters. If the parameters mentioned in the Note are satisfied
then the product in question would fall under Chapter Heading 59.06
which uses the expression "Rubberised Textile Fabrics", failing which the
product would fall under Chapter Heading 59.02. Since classification of
the product was not in issue in any of the earlier judgments, the Tribunal F
was wrong in equating Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric with Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric. (822-B-C-D)

1.2. The judgments in the cases of Falcon Tyres and Vikrant Tyres
dealt with classification of Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric with reference
to Chapter Heading 40.05 vis-a-vis Chapter Heading 59.05 (now 59.06). G
Therefore, the prior judgments have no application to the controversy in
hand. Lastly, the Tribunal has not examined the scope of HSN Heading
59.02. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority has not examined the matter
in the light of Note-4 to Chapter 59. rt has also not examined the problem
in the context of Note-4 to Section XI and there is no evidence of
marketability of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric. Hence, the Adjudicating H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 1 S.C.R.
-'.
A Authority is directed to examine the matter in the light of the Note-4 to
Chapter 59 and Note-4 to Section XI of the Act. The basic question which
the Adjudicating Authority is required to decide is - whether Dipped Tyre
Cord Fabric is an independent product in terms of manufacture and
marketability. Accordingly, the question of excisability and classification
of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric are remitted to the Commissioner
B (Adjudication) for a fresh determination in accordance with law:
[822-E-F-G-H; 823-AI

Falcon Tyres Limitedv. Collector ofCentral Excise, Bangalore, (1996)
88 ELT 450 and Vikrant Tyres Limited v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bangalore, (1997) 90 ELT 178, distinguished.
c
2. With regard to the question of classification of Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric, Department issued two show-cause notices proposing to levy
additional excise duty on Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric captively
consumed in manufacture of the tyres. The Department sought to classify
D the product under chapter Heading 59.02. According to the assessee, on
rubberization, the rubber content in the product exceeded the prescribed
limit vis-a-vis the fabric and, therefore, it was classifiable under Chapter
Heading 40.05. However, the Authority came to the conclusion that
Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric was classifiable under Chapter Heading
59.05 (now 59.06) of the Act and proceedings against the assessee were
E dropped. The order has been confirmed by this Court vide their order
dated 27.9.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1494-1495 of 1999. Howeve1·, in
conjoint proceedings, the Authority took a contrary view, vide their o,rder
dated 24.10.1997, that the product was classifiable under Chapter Hea1iing
59.02 and, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay the additional ei.cise
F duty thereon. The order was challenged by the assessee before the
Tribunal. By the impugned judgment, the order was set aside by the
Tribunal following the judgments of this Court in Falcon Tyres and Vikrant
Tyres. Hence, the controversy regarding classifiability of Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric is no more res integra. The product is classifiable under
Chapter Heading 59.06. No infirmity is found in the impugned judgment
G of the Tribunal on this point. [823-B-C-D-E-F-G-Hl
Falcon Tyres limitedv. Collector ofCentral Exdse, Bangalore, (1~ 1 96)
88 ELT 450 and Vikrant Tyres Limited v. Collect Jr of Central Excise,
..
Bangalore, (1997) 90 ELT 178, relied on.

H
C.C.E. v. M.R.F. LTD. [KAPADIA, J.) 817
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1476-1493 A
of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 7.98 of the Central Excise
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chi:nnai
in F.O. Nos. 1370-1388198 and Stay Order No. 672/98 in A.Nos. EIStayl888/
98 in Ell307198, El492, 241-243, 730-741, 62 and 63/98. B
AND

C.A. Nos. 1087-1088 of 1999.

R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, V. Ramasubramanian, A. Subba C
Rao, Hemant Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant.

F.S. Nariman, and Joseph Vellapally, S. Ignatius and K.R. Nambiar for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
KAPADIA, J. The main question which arises for determination in this
set of Civil Appeals is - whether Dipped Nylon Tyre Cord Warp Sheet
(hereinafter referred to as the "Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric") is a High Tenacity
Yam in terms of Tariff Heading 59.02.
E
The facts gi.ving rise to these civil appeals filed by the department
under Section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise Act, I 944 are as follows :

Mis M.R.F. Ltd., Goa are manufacturers of tyres excisable under chapter
40 of the Schedl'le to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Mis MRF Ltd buys
Grey Tyre Cord Warp Sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "Grey Tyre Cord F
Fabric") which is passed through rollers into a tank containing Dip solution
of Latex, which covers the said Grey Tyre Cord Fabric. The Dip solution
consists of chemicals. After dipping, the Tyre Cord Fabric is heat stretched
and lifted to a height of 15 ft. by small rollers through heat chambers and
then brought down for calendering, which is the second stage of the process. G
Twelve show-cause notices were issued to Mis MRF Ltd. by the Commissioner
of Central Excise, Goa under which additional duty of excise was demanded
on the ground that the assessee was manufacturing an excisable product,
namely, Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric, falling under Tariff Heading 59.02.

By common written reply, the assessee contended that they did not H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 1 S.C.R.

A manufacture Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric; that they manufacture only tyres; that
in the course of manufacture of tyres, they use Grey Tyre Cord Fabric as a
reinforcing material and before it is so used, the Grey Tyre Cord Fabric is
dipped in a solution of Latex and thereafter rubberised on both sides. It was
submitted that no manufacture is involved as the Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric
B is sticky to touch. It was further submitted that the Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric
was not marketable.

The main question before the Commissioner (Adjudication) was -
whether the assessee was liable to pay additional excise duty on Dipped Tyre t
Cord Fabric, which was captively consumed in the manufacture of tyres. By
C order dated 31. I 0.1997, the Commissioner (Adjudication) found that Dipped
Tyre Cord Fabric was neither Grey Tyre Cord Fabric nor a Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric. According to the Commissioner, Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was
an independent product which came into existence out of a process incidental
to the manufacture, namely, dipping. The Commissioner held that Tariff
Heading 59.02 refers to Tyre Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yam of Nylon
D whereas Tariff Heading 59.06 refers to Rubberised Textile Fabric. It was
observed in the impugned order that in order to be categorized as Rubberised
Textile Fabric, the product should have a predominance of rubber in proportion
to the fabric. According to the Commissioner, the process of dipping did not
bring about a predominance of rubber in the product. According to the
E Commissioner, dipping was a process ancillary to manufacture. According to
the Commissioner, dipping was a stage prior to rubberising. It was a stage
prior to coating of compounded rubber on both sides of the tyre cord.
Consequently, it was held that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was an independent
product classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.02, on which additional excise
duty was payable by the assessee. It was further held that Dipped Tyre Cord
F Fabric was capable of being marketed and, therefore, additional excise duty
could be levied thereon.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.1997, Mis M.R.F. Ltd. went in
appeal to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal"). At this stage, it may be noted that the assessee
G challenged similar orders passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication), Goa,
dated 15.12.1997 ar.d 20.2.1998 along with the above order dated 31.10.1997.
The assessee also preferred appeals against the orders passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), Chennai, on classification of
Rubberised Nylon Tyre Cord Warp Sheet (hereinafter referred to as Rubberised
H Tyre Cord Fabric), which will be dealt with separately by us.
C.C.E. v. M.R.F. LTD. [KAPADIA, J.] 819
By impugned judgment dated 20.7.1998, the Tribunal held that Dipped A
Tyre Cord Fabric was classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.05 (now 59.06).
The Tribunal equated Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric with Dipped Tyre Cord
Fabric and placing reliance on the judgments in Falcon Tyres Limited v.
Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, reported in ( 1996) 88 EL T 450 and
Vikrant Tyres Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, reported in
(19970) 90 EL T 178, allowed the assessee's appeals, holding Rubberised B
Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric as a product falling under Tariff Heading 59.05
(now 59.06).

Being aggrieved, the department has come to this Court against the
three orders passed by the Commissioner, Goa dated 20.2.1998, 31.10. I 997 C
and 15.12.1997.

Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Grey
Tyre Cord Fabric (base fabric) after dipping was classifiable under Tariff
Heading 59.02 as Processed Tyre Fabric. He further submitted that in terms
of Tariff Heading 59.06, Rubberised Textile Fabric other than those falling D
under Tariff Heading 59.02 alone would fall under Heading 59.06. He
submitted that because of this exclusion, Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric would fall
under Tariff Heading 59.02 which referred to Tyre Cord Fabrics of High
Tenacity Yam. In this connection, learned counsel for the department placed
reliance on the description of the product under HSN Heading 59.02 read
with the Note appended thereto, which specifies that HSN Heading 59.02 E
covered Tyre Cord Fabrics, whether or not dipped in rubber or plastics. He
further submitted that as per rule (I) of the Interpretation Rules appended to
the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, classification of the
product has to be decided according to the terms of the Heading. According
to the learned counsel, the Heading 59.02 covered Tyre Cord Fabric of High p
Tenacity Yam and, therefore, Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was rightly classified
by the department under Tariff Heading 59.02. Learned counsel for the
department further submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal has not
examined the "process of dipping" and it has merely followed the previous
judgments which do not have any application to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabrics.
G
Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of
M/s M.R.F. Ltd. submitted that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was not an
independent product in terms of manufacture and marketability. He submitted
that the assessee did not manufacture Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric. He submitted
that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was similar to friction cloth. He submitted that H
there is no evidence of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric being marketable. He
'r' ..

820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) I S.C.R.

A submitted that in order to detennine whether the product was excisable or
not, it was necessary to familiarize oneself with the product as well as with
the manufacturing process. He contended that Grey Tyre Cord Fabric after
going through the process of dipping loses its identity and becomes a different
!Jroduct commercially. He submitted that the product under Chapter Heading
59.02 was the basic product and when dipped it gets shifted from textile to
B rubber. He submitted that Chapter Heading 59.02 did not use words, such as,
"Impregnated, coated, covered and laminated", whereas these words have
been used under other Heading in the same Chapter. He submitted that the
reliance placed by the department on the Explanatory Note to HSN was
erroneous. He submitted that Chapter Heading 59.02 in the HSN has only
C persuasive value while reading the Tariff Chapter Heading 59.02. He further
submitted that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was not marketable as it was made
according to MRF specifications. He submitted that in the show-cause notices,
there was no allegation to the effect that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was
marketable. Learned senior counsel further submitted that Dipped Tyre Cord
Fabric was classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.06 of Central Excise Tariff
D Act, 1985, as held in Falcon Tyres (supra) and Vikrant Tyres (supra).
Mr. Nariman further submitted that the burden was on the department
to prove that Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was an independent product both in
tenns of manufacture and marketability. He submitted that no such finding
E has been recorded by the Commissioner (Adjudication).
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we quote herein below the
relevant provisions:

I. HEADINGS 59.02 AND 59.06 OF 1985 ACT.

F Heading No. Description of Goods

59.02 Tyre cord fabric of high tenacity yam of nylon or
other polyamides polyesters or viscose rayon.

G 59.06 Rubberised textile fabrics, other than those of
Heading No.59.02.
C.C.E. v. M.R.F. LTD. [KAPADIA, J.] 821
II. HEADINGS 59.02 OF HSN A
Headi11g No. Descriptio11 of Goods

59.02 Tyre Cord Fabric of High Tenacity Yarn of Nylon
or other Polyamides Polyesters or Viscose Rayon.
B
This heading covers tyre cord fabric, whether or not dipped or
impregnated with rubber or plastics.

Hr. NOTE-4 OF SECTION-XI - TEXTILES AND TEXTILE
ARTICLES.

For the purposes of this Section, 'high tenacity yarn' means yarn having
c
a tenacity, expressed in cN/tex (centinewtons per tex), greater than the
following : ·
Single yarn of nylon or other polyamides or
of Polyesters ...60cN/tex
D
Multiple (folded) or cabled yam of nylon or
Other polyamides or of polyesters .. .55cN/tex

Single, multiple (folded) or cabled yarn of
viscose rayon. ... 27cN/tex E
rv. NOTE-4 OF CHAPTER-59 - IMPREGNATED, COATED,
COVERED OR LAMINATED TEXTILE FABRICS; TEXTILE
ARTICLES OF A KIND SUITABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.

For the purposes of heading No. 59.06, the expression 'rubberised textile
fabrics' means : F
(a) Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with
rubber,

(i) weighing not more than 1,500 g/m'; or

(ii) weighing more than 1,500 g/m 2 and containing more than G
50 per cent by weight of textile material;

(b) Fabrics made from yarn, strip or the like, impregnated, coated,
covered or sheathed with rubber, of heading No.56.04;
(c) Fabrics composed of parallel textile yarns agglomerated with H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS rzo05) I S.C.R.

A rubber, irrespective of their weight per ~quare metre.
This heading does not, however, apply to plates, sheets or strips of
cellular rubber, combined with textile fabric, where the textile
fabric is present merely for reinforcing purposes (Chapter 40), or
textile product of heading No.58.1 O."
B On reading above provisions, we find that it is the rubber content of the
product, which is the main determinative test to decide whether Dipped Tyre
Cord Fabric is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.02 or 59.05 (now 59.06).
To be categorized as Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric, the product must have
pre-dominance of rubber in proportion to fabric. It is for this reason that
C Note-4 of Chapter 59, quoted above, indicates the requisite parameters. Tariff
Heading 59.02 is found in section XI of 1985 Act, which has caption "Textiles
and Textile Articles". The Heading of Chapter 59 refer!! to lamination and
coating of Textile Fabrics. If the parameters mentioned in Note-4 of Chapter
59 are satisfied then the product in question would fall under Chapter Heading
59.06 which uses the expression "Rubberised Textile Fabrics", failing which
D the product will fall under Chapter Heading 59.02. Similarly, one has to keep
in mind the specifications given under Note-4 to section XI, which defines
"High Tenacity Yam". If the product in question, namely, Dipped Tyre Cord
Fabric comes within the specifications prescribed in Note-4 to section XI,
..
then the product may fall under Chapter Heading 59.02 We may further point
E out that the classification of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric was not in issue in any
of the earlier judgments, referred to above. The Tribunal was wrong in equating
Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric with Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric. The judgments
in Falcon Tyres (supra) and Vikrant Tyres (supra) dealt with classification of
Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric with reference to Chapter Heading 40.05 vis-
a-vis Chapter Heading 59.05 (now 59.06). Therefore, the abovementioned
F prior judgments have no application to the controversy in hand. Lastly, the
Tribunal has not examined the scope of HSN Heading 59.02. Moreover, the
Adjudicating Authority has not examined the matter in the light ofNote-4 to
Chapter 59. It has not examined the problem in the context of Note-4 to
section XI and there is no evidence of marketability of Dipped Tyre Cord
G Fabric. Although, the adjudication order is a well reasoned order, we want
the Adjudicating Authority to also examine the matter in the light of the
above Note-4 to Chapter 59 and Note-4 to section XI. We have also given
an opportunity to the department to lead evidence, both on the process as
well as on marketability. The basic question which the Adjudicating Authority
is required to decide is whether Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric is an independent
H product in terms of manufacture and marketability?
C.C.E. v. M.R.F. LTD. [KAPADIA . .I.] 823
·, > Accordingly, the question of excisability and the questions of A
classification of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric are remitted to the Commissioner
(Adjudication), Goa for a fresh determination in accordance with law.

Now coming to the question of classification of Rubberised Tyre Cord
Fabric, we may point out that the Superintendent of Central Excise having
jurisdiction over M/s M.R.F. Ltd., Arkonam issued two show-cause notices B
dated 3.12.1996 and 3.6.1997 proposing to levy additional excise duty on
Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric captively consumed in manufacture of tyres
during the period May, 1996 to October, 1996 and during the period
November, 1996 to April, 1997 respectively. By the said show-cause notices,
the department sought to classify Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric under Chapter C
Heading 59.02. Mis M.R.F. Ltd., however, contended that Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric was classifiable under Chapter Heading 40.05. According to the
assessee, on rubberization, the content of rubber in the product exceeded the
prescribed limit vis-a-vis the fabric and, therefore, it was classifiable under
Chapter Heading 40.05. However, the Commissioner, Chennai came to the
conclusion that Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric was classifiable under Chapter D
Heading 59.05 (now 59.06). He placed reliance on the judgments in Falcon
Tyres (supra) and Vikrant Tyres (supra). This order was passed by the
Commissioner, Chennai on 25.9.1997. By the said order, the proceedings
against the assessee were dropped. This order has been confirmed by this
Court vide order dated 27.9.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos.1494-1495 of 1999. E
However, in conjoint proceedings, the Commissioner (Adjudication) took a
contrary view, vide order dated 24.10.1997, that Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric
was classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.02 and, therefore, the assessee
was liable to pay the additional excise duty thereon. The said order was
challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment
dated 20.7.1998, the said order is set aside, following the judgments in Falcon F
Tyres (supra) and Vikrant Tyres (supra).

In short, the controversy regarding classifiability of Rubberised Tyre
Cord Fabric is no more res integra. The said product is classifiable under
Chapter Heading 59.06. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal on this point. G
Accordingly, Civil Appeal Nos.1479 to 1481of1999 and Civil Appeal
Nos.1087-1088of1999, filed by the department relating to classification of
Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric are dismissed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1476 to 1478of1999 and Civil Appeal Nos.1482 to H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] I S.C.R.

A 1493 of 1999, filed by the department relating to classification of Dipped
Tyre Cord Fabric are allowed; the impugned judgments and orders of the
Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner are set aside; and the matters are
remitted to the Commissioner (Adjudication), Goa for a fresh disposal in
accordance with law.

B In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to
costs in all the civil appeals.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1676-1678/
I 999 and 1676-77/2002.

C From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2001 of the Central Excise
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at
Bombay in F.O.Nos. C.11/2196-99/WZB/2001 in Application. No.E/Stay-2430
and 2431/2000-Bom, A.Nos. E/3360 and 3361 of 2000-Bom.

R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, V. Ramasubramanian, A. Subba
D Rao, Hemani Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant.

Ravinder Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal, Sanjeev Dahiya
and Rajan Narain for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in the conjoint
Civil Appeals, entitled Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.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.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to
costs.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.