- (1.) THE point involved in these appeals is whether the criss -cross patches of vulcanized rubber manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under sub -heading 4008.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as claimed by the Revenue or under sub -heading 4016.99 thereof, as claimed by the assessee appellant.
(2.) THE Tribunal, by the impugned order, has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the criss -cross patches of vulcanized rubber manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under sub -heading 4008.21. One of the contentions raised by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the classification for identical rubber patches was being done by the Department under sub -heading 4016.99. In support of this submission, the Appellant relied upon Order -in -Original No. V/40/3/5/87 -VC dated 19th December 1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dindigul and Order -in -Original No. V/40/30/91/94 -C.E., dated 29th November 1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, II Division, Coimbatore. Apparently, in the impugned order, the tribunal has not recorded any finding on the said contention.
(3.) THIS Court in an identical situation arising in the case of Damodar J. Malpani v. Collector of Central Excise reported in : 2002 (146) E.L.T. 483 (S.C) held that the least the Tribunal could have done in the interest of 'uniformity' was to call upon the Revenue Authorities to explain why they were making a distinction between the Appellant's product and that of another manufacturer allegedly manufacturing the same product. This Court, in these circumstances, remanded the case to the tribunal for considering whether the product and process followed by the other manufacturer in the said case was the same as that of the Appellants in the said case and thereafter consider the question of classification of the product manufactured by the Appellant therein vis -a -vis the product manufactured by the other manufacturer.;