ORDER : 1. Issue involved in the present appeals is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption under exemption notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30th April, 1975. 2. Respondent-assessee, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, manufactures Rubberised Coir Mattresses and Cushions and has not paid the excise duty claiming exemption under the aforesaid notification. Department issued two show cause notices dated 29.1.996 and 12.6.1996. The basis of the said show cause notices was that the department viewed that the product manufactured by the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 30.4.1975, since the benefit of the above notification is available to the coir product/industry and the product manufactured by the respondent is rubber based or in other words respondent is a rubberised based industry. Respondent contested the notices and filed its reply. 3. The assessing authority passed the order-in-original on 23.2.1999 rejecting the claim put forward by the respondent and confirmed the demand. It was held that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Penalty was also imposed on the respondent. 4. Aggrieved against the order passed by the assessing authority, respondent filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). Tribunal, by its impugned order, has accepted the appeal; set aside the order in original and held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Consequently, the demand against the respondent was dropped. 5. It is not disputed before us that the coir industry is one of the industry which has been exempted under the above-said notification from the levy of excise duty. A doubt had been raised before the Coir Board as to whether factories manufacturing rubberised coir mattresses could be regarded as factories covered by the coir industry for the purposes of benefit of the exemption notification. Accordingly, a clarification was issued by the Coir Board, Government of India, Cochin confirming that rubberised coir industry should be treated as coir industry for the purpose of exemption of excise duty and that such rubberised coir mattresses would be eligible for exemption in terms of notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.04.1975. The relevant portion of the clarification is as follows: "...The matter has been considered in the Board's office. The relevant portion of the clarification is as follows: "...The matter has been considered in the Board's office. Board observes that Section 3(d) of the Coir Industry Act, 1953 defines coir products as "Mats, mattings and carpets, ropes and other articles manufactured wholly or partly from coir or coir yarn". In terms of this definition rubberised coir mattresses of the type mentioned above would be covered as coir products. A specific reference was made to the Coir Board, Government of India, Cochin who have confirmed that rubberised coir industry should be treated as coir industry for the purpose of excise duty exemption in this case. Board accordingly, holds that such rubberised coir mattresses would be eligible for exemption in terms of notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.04.1975, as amended." 6. Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that respondent is a rubber based industry and not the coir based industry. Further he has argued that the mattresses produced by the respondent contained less than 50% of the coir. We do not find any merit in these submissions. To run a coir or rubber industry, a licence has to be taken from Coir Board or Rubber Board, as the case may be. 7. As the appellant wanted to run a coir industry it took licence from the Coir Board. It is running the industry on the basis of that licence. It has not taken a licence from the Rubber Board to run a rubber industry though it has taken a "Licence to acquire rubber" from the Rubber Board. Since it is functioning under a licence granted by the coir board it would be deemed to be a coir industry. As per chemical analysis report of the seized material the final product contained 55.5% of the coir in the mattresses produced by the respondent. submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mattresses produced by the respondent contained less than 50% of coir is without any basis. 8. The same point was involved in Civil Appeal No.............of 1999 (D.No. 8812 of 1999) titled Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Coir Cushion P. Ltd. This Court on 24.9.1999 while condoning the delay has dismissed the appeal filed by the department. 9. 8. The same point was involved in Civil Appeal No.............of 1999 (D.No. 8812 of 1999) titled Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Coir Cushion P. Ltd. This Court on 24.9.1999 while condoning the delay has dismissed the appeal filed by the department. 9. Again the same question arose for consideration before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2224 of 2000 titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. Following the decision in the case of Coir Cushion P. Ltd., the appeal was dismissed. Respondent has rightly been held entitled to avail of the exemption notification. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, in view of the clarification issued by the Coir Board and the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Coir Cushion P. Ltd. and Hindustan Coir Products Ltd., we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.