ORDER 1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22-11-1994 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/850 of 1991, the appellant has filed this appeal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment arrived at the conclusion that "Taps a yarn" manufactured by the appellant was classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Chapter Heading 56.06. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment the Tribunal has taken a contrary view in Pratik Crimpers v. CCEI and in S.J. Vasania Silk Mills v. CCE2. It is pointed out that in both these cases the Tribunal has referred to the circular dated 10-10-1988 issued by the Department, the relevant part of which reads as under: "In view of the above, it is clarified that the instructions in Boards Letter F. No. 56/3/87-CX dated 26-4-1988 is applicable to such types of fancy yarns in which there is a core yarn and that the instructions contained in Boards F. No. 55/9/87-CX dated 30-6-1987 are not sought to be modified by the letter dated 26-4-1988 and that both the instructions may be read separately. In view of the definitions of single yarn, multiple (folded) yarns and cabled yarns as given in the HSN a Explanatory Notes relating to Chapters 50 to 55 and particularly in respect of yarns as given at pp. 707 and 778 of the HSN Explanatory Notes, the single multiple (folded) and cabled yarns, whether plain or fancy, if they conform to the definitions of single multiple (folded) yarn and cabled yarns as discussed above, would be classifiable in Chapters 50 to 55 of the Central Excise Tariff depending upon the predominance of the textile materials and subject to the section note of Section XI and the relevant Chapter Notes of the Central Excise Tariff." 4. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Pratik Crimpers I the Tribunal had decided the other matter of Kapadia Enterprises v. CCE & Customs3. Against the judgment and order the Department preferred appeal which was dismissed by this Court in limine as reported in (2001) 133 ELT A260. 5. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Pratik Crimpers I the Tribunal had decided the other matter of Kapadia Enterprises v. CCE & Customs3. Against the judgment and order the Department preferred appeal which was dismissed by this Court in limine as reported in (2001) 133 ELT A260. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the Tribunal and also the fact that against the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in Pratik Crimpers easel the appeal preferred by the Department was dismissed, this appeal requires to be allowed. As against this, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent submitted that the question whether the appellant was using core yarn or not requires to be examined on the basis of the evidence which is led by the parties. Hence the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. 6. Considering the fact that there is no definite finding rendered by the Tribunal whether the appellant was using core yarn in manufacturing Tapsa yarn, matter requires to be re-examined by the Tribunal by considering the evidence which is led by the parties. 7. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside, matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the case in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.