ORDER 1. The appellant before us is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and in the course of their business they purchased tyre cord warp sheets which are dipped in resorcinol formaldehyde latex solution and then dried. The question is whether this item will fall within Tariff Item 22(1)(b) or whether it falls under Entry 16-A(2). 2. Entry 22 reads as follows: "22. Man-made fabrics means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from man-made fibres or yam and includes embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials, and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks, in each of which manmade (i) cellulosic fibre or yam, or (ii) non-cellulosic fibre or yam, predominates in weight:" 3. Entry 16-A(2) reads as follows: "16-A. (2) Plates, sheets and strips unhardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise." 4. The assessing authority found that all the classified goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 22(1)(b) of the Central Excise Tariff. On appeal to the Collector of Central Excise, he held that tyre cord warp sheets which are dipped in resorcinol solution are classifiable under Tariff Item 16-A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as rubber product and not under Item 22( 1 )(b) of the Central Excise Tariff as it existed prior to 28-2-1986. 5. The Tribunal after adverting to the decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan1 and the decision in CCE v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd.2 took the view that the predominance of the percentage of the materials has to be ascertained; that the fabric predominates and the Collector has not clearly stated that after dipping in resorcinol solution the rubber cord warp sheet is more or less in comparison to the other materials, and took the view that in Fenoplast (P) Ltd.2 this Court held that predominance is only in relation to the base fabrics which are impregnated, coated or laminated, as the case may be, and on that basis allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is contended before us that interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the decision in Fenoplast (P) Ltd.2 is not correctly applied. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is contended before us that interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the decision in Fenoplast (P) Ltd.2 is not correctly applied. It is also brought to our notice that the expression "man-made fabric" has been elaborated in Tariff Item 22 itself. It covers only situations such as fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks such as flock-printed fabrics and flock-coated fabrics. It cannot be disputed that the goods in question are not of that nature which can be termed as a preparation of cellulose derivatives or other artificial plastic material or fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks. Hence, Tariff Item 22 may not be attracted at all. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have entirely relied upon only Tariff Item 22 and adverted to a proviso made in that provision and interpreted the whole matter. The decision in Fenoplast (P) Ltd.2 should not have been understood in that light. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter for consideration in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly.