COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. VIKRANT TYRES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS in these appeals are tyre manufacturers. They received tyre cord fabrics, in some cases dipped or impregnated with rubber or plastics and in other cases not subjected to such processing. It is to be noted that tyre cord fabric manufacturers paid duty on these fabrics at the time of removal from their factories under Heading 5902 of Central Excise Tariff. Respondents carried out coating of rubber on such fabrics and then subjected them to calendering. Dispute arose between the respondents and jurisdictional revenue officers about the correct excise classification of the rubber coated tyre cord fabrics with assessees claiming classification under Heading 5906 and jurisdictional Central Excise authorities holding that correct classification is under 5902.

(2.) THE respondents filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who held in their favour observing that the classification issue remains covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. -1997 (90) E.L.T. 178 (T); Apollo Tyres - Order Nos. 1790 to 1807/98, dated 23 -6 -98 [1999 (108) E.L.T. 247]; MRF Ltd. - Order Nos. 1370 to 1388/98, dated 20 -7 -1998 [1999 (105) E.L.T. 619] and Ceat Ltd. -1999 (111) E.L.T. 383.

(3.) WE have perused the records and heard submissions from both sides. While the Revenue is relying on the decisions of this Tribunal (Division Bench) in the cases of Good Year (India) Ltd. and South Asia Tyres Ltd., the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents is that those decisions do not constitute good law inasmuch as they have been rendered without taking into account the correct scope of Heading 5902. For case of the discussion, we read Heading 59.02: