ORDER
Harish Chander, President
1. By the present application, the respondent-Collector has made a prayer for recalling the order in respect of Appeal No. E/889/93-A disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order No. 54-55/94-A, dated 28-2-1994. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR has appeared for the applicant-Collector. He pleaded that it appears that through a mistaken belief, the learned Consultant for the assessee had pleaded that this Appeal No. E/889/93-A is similar to Appeal No. E/717/93-A. Shri Singhal pleaded that Appeal No. E/717/93-A pertains to exclusion of inspection charges for the purpose of valuation where it is at the instance of the purchaser, in view of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal) and upheld by Supreme Court, Shri Singhal pleaded that the Tribunal had disposed of two appeals by a common order vide Order No. 54-55/94-A, dated 28-2-1994 and Order No. 54 may be treated as in respect of Appeal No. E.889/93-A and Order No. 55 may be treated as in respect of Appeal No. E.717/93-A and Order No. 54/94-A in respect of Appeal No. E.889/93-A may be recalled. Shri K.K. Kapoor, the learned Consultant, who has appeared on behalf of the assessee fairly agreed with the submissions made by the learned JDR and he stated that the error had happened bonafidely on his part and as such he has got no objection for recalling the order in respect of Appeal No. E.889/93-A which may be treated as in respect of Final Order No. 54/94-A, dated 28-2-1994. In reply, Shri Singhal stated that he did not doubt the bona fides of the learned Consultant.
2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the records. We have perused the appeal memo and the impugned order. Appeal No. E.717/93-A pertains to exclusion of inspection charges at the instance of the purchaser and the matter is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal) and upheld by the Supreme court, whereas in Appeal No. E.889/93-A the issue involved is different as it related to confirmation of demand resulting from enhancing the assessable value on account of cost of production and overhead charges relating to supply of nuts and bolts to their parent company M/s. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. during the clearances effected by them for the period August 1989 to December 1991. This means there is no finding by the Tribunal on this issue and this Order No. 54/94-A, dated 28-2-1994 needs to be recalled. The Tribunal in the case of Smt. Prativa Rani Samanta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 482 [Tribunal) [Para 3] has held as under :-
* * * * * * *
3. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the submissions of both the sides, we order that the Appeal No. E.889/93-A may be treated as in respect of Order No. 54/94-A, dated 28-2-1994 and we order recalling of the order in this matter and direct the Registry to issue fresh notices of hearing for hearing of the matter on merits. The Order No. 55/94-A, dated 28-2-1994 continues to remain in respect of Appeal No. E.717/93-A. In the result, the application for Rectification of Mistake is allowed.