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 matter to be considered on facts and circumstances of each case. It is now settled that we have no powers to review our own order.

5. We are dealing with each item according to Shri Banerjee is a mistake pointed out in the Paper Book seriatim. We are giving only the number of paragraphs for the sake of brevity of the order followed by our reasons for accepting or rejecting the contention of Shri Banerjee.

6. Para-2

We have taken the submission from the statement of facts in Annexure-A from the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, there is no mistake. We reject this plea.

Para-3.

Para 3 does not indicate any apparent mistake on record.

Para-4.

In this para following corrections may be made:

Substitute first October, 1975 for first March, 1986.

Para-5.

Substitute the following paragraph in para 18.

Relying on Tata Frazers Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1990 (15) ETR 34, he submitted that mere collection of various components/parts at site partly by manufacturer from its own factory by M/s Elpro, partly getting them from other factories, partly buying some from the market by M/s IGE will not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2F of the Act.

Para-6

In para No. 14 of the memorandum of appeal, it is stated as follows:

Under the said Act, the place of manufacture is a condition precedent to the levy of excise duty and that the L-4 licence premises. It is whether assembly of certain excisable goods takes place within the L-4 premises or from the place of manufacture. If assembly of various components of X-ray equipment takes place at individual sites on 100%, the customers under the said Act, each of the customers site cannot be treated as a place of manufacture and the job is undertaken on each of the customers site cannot be treated as part of manufacture or ancillary of manufacturer. In paras 20 and 21 of the order, we have stated the gist of the ground No. 14 of the memorandum of appeal. Therefore there is no mistake in paras 20 and 21.

Para-7

The argument of Shri Banerjee in No. 7 is that of liability of M/s. Elpro is to pay duty only in respect of various components manufactured by M/s. Elpro and sold to M/s. IGE and the value of bought out items purchased by M/s. IGE is not includible in the value of goods manufactured by M/s. Elpro. Even if M/s. Elpro and IGE are related persons.

This issue has not been dealt with in para 20 of the order of this Tribunal. It is not a matter for rectification. Therefore, we reject the prayer of Shri Banerjee.

Para-8

We agree with the appellants that there is a mistake in stating that the agreement between M/s. Elpro and M/s, IGE is not before us. However, now on consideration of the agreement we are of the view that it does not in any way affect the findings given in paras 43 and 44 which is based on a consideration of the entire