S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)

1. This ROM is filed pointing out the following mistakes.

2. We have heard Shri Banerjee, learned advocate on behalf of the appellants and Smt. Lal on behalf of the department.

3. Shri Banerjee relied on the following decisions, namely,

1. Smt. Prativa Rani Samanta v. CCE, Calcutta reported in MANU/CK/0022/1983

2. Metal Extruder's case reported in MANU/CE/0176/1984

3. Neelam Tin Industries case reported in 1987 (27) ELT 315 : 1987 (10) ECR 233 (Cegat SB-D)

4. CC, Madras v. I.P. Engineers

5. National Textile Corporation v. CCE reported in MANU/CE/0441/1987

6. Bhim Sain's case reported in MANU/CE/0233/1989

7. Ludhiana Food Products' case reported in MANU/CE/0366/1990

8. Deep Motor's case reported in MANU/CE/0203/1990

9. Siri Ram Bonsai's case reported in MANU/CE/0497/1990

10. Popular Jeweller's case reported in MANU/CE/0156/1990

11. Bharat Kumari's case reported in MANU/CE/0149/1991

12. Laxmi Vijay's case reported in MANU/CE/0173/1991

13. Dalmia Laminators' case reported in MANU/CE/0176/1991.

In support of his contentions in his written submissions filed as paper book.

4. In our view whether there is a mistake of fact requiring rectification is a