JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 18-4-2012 framed following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether retreading of tyres was a taxable service in the net of "Management, maintenance or repair" service category as defined under section 65(64) read with Section 65(105)(zzg) prior to 16-6-2005 before amendment and addition of scientific words "reconditioning or restoration"? 2. Whether the principles of judicial discipline and binding precedence are violated in the facts and circumstances, when the learned CESTAT has overlooked and not considered their own dictum/order of not taxing retreading of tyres under service tax prior to 16-6-2005? 3. Whether the tribunal was read in law in holding that it has become "functus officio" and cannot rectify the mistake apparent on record in spite of the fact that it has not considered its own judgment/order on the similar issue in favour of assessee?" 3. In spite of the order of this court dated 5-8-2011 which reads as under :- "It is submitted by learned counsel that CESTAT has taken different view in different cases and as such the appellant wants to move rectification application before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Liberty prayed for is granted. The appeal, as prayed, is dismissed as withdrawn. In case, such an application is submitted, the same be dealt with expeditiously." 4. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the two decisions reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 339 and 2010 (18) S.T.R. 70 , the same Bench of the tribunal required to consider the same but it has not been considered. 5. We make it clear that we are deciding only question no. 2 which was admitted by this court on 18-4-2012 and the tribunal will consider decisions and it will be open for him to give findings independently on merits of this case. However, he could not ignore the delivery of decisions by the same Bench. In that view of the matter, the order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. 6. We make it clear that we have not examined the matter on Questions No. 1 and 3. 7. However, he could not ignore the delivery of decisions by the same Bench. In that view of the matter, the order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. 6. We make it clear that we have not examined the matter on Questions No. 1 and 3. 7. It will be open for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh after considering two decisions relied upon by the assessee and give reasons independently without influenced by the fact that this court has set aside the order on merits to maintain jurisdictional discipline since two decisions are not considered. 8. In view of the above, we remit back the matter to the Tribunal, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Tribunal will give its own finding after considering both the judgments. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.