Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD versus M/S. CEAT LTD., NASIK

Decided
17 February 2005
Judges listed
S.N. VARIAVA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 164 · 2005 INSC 82

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. ltd., reported in (2005) I Scale 554, this Civil Appeal filed by the department relating to classification of Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric is dismissed,. with no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.

p. 164, margin F