JUDGMENT : The Revenue is in appeal before us against a judgment and order dated 27-6-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/1932/01-Mum. whereby and whereunder it upheld the contention of the respondent herein that it was entitled to the reversal of amounts effected in the registers of inputs credit and the actuals made as per 8% calculation in lieu of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal, however, remitted the matter back to the original authority for determining the quantum of the amount the respondent is entitled to recover. 2. Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that from a bare perusal of the impugned order it would appear that the Tribunal has mechanically fallowed a decision of this Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 1996 (2) SCC 159 as also a decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 without going into the question' as to whether having regard to sub-rule (9) of the Rule 57CC of the Rules, the respondent would be entitled to reversal of credit which they have deposited in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC or not. 3. The respondent herein is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts thereof. It also installs bodies on the chassis, both by way of job work basis and also by purchasing chasis and thereafter selling the motor vehicles in its own account. It uses duty paid inputs for the manufacture of final products. These inputs are used in respect of both types of final products viz (a) where final product is subject to payment of duty; and (b) where final product is exempted from payment of duty or where duty is nil. 4. As the other relevant facts have been noticed by the tribunal, we need not advert thereto. 5. The appellant herein has raised contentious issues as regards applicability of sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC vis-a-vis the provisions of Rule 57A and Rule 57C thereof. 4. As the other relevant facts have been noticed by the tribunal, we need not advert thereto. 5. The appellant herein has raised contentious issues as regards applicability of sub-rule (9) of Rule 57CC vis-a-vis the provisions of Rule 57A and Rule 57C thereof. The respondent also contends that they are entitled to the reversal of amounts effected in the registers of inputs credit and for consideration as to whether the respondent has complied with the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 or not. 6. Having regard to the fact that these issues which were required to be determined by the Tribunal, have not been determined, we are of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. 7. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. We may, however, place on record that we have not gone into the merit of the matter and, thus, all contentions of the parties shall remain open. 8. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations. Case remanded.