For each model the parts are according to its companyfiguration and technical specifications and the price is also declared accordingly to the department.
Therefore, appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake.
The 3rd Member who heard the matter referred to, agreed with the Member Technical .
As against this, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior companynsel appearing for the Department, supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
However, while passing the order on the application for rectification of mistake, a difference of opinion arose in the matter.
This demand was companyfirmed by the Commissioner respondent.
The companytentions of the Appellant that they have paid duty at its invoice price on all clearances of chassis of model number 1612 and that they have never recovered any amount over and above the invoice price from their customers, was number taken into account by the original Bench of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal.
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 31st October, 2000 passed by the Tribunal as also the order dated 8th October, 2001 on the application for rectification of mistake.
In other words, the value of the chassis depends upon its firments.
On 31st October, 2000, the Tribunal passed a final order dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
Against the order of the Respondent, the appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal.
The Member Judicial , who was a party to the original Bench, allowed the application for rectification of mistake and ordered rehearing of the appeal.
There is numberdispute on this factual position between the parties.
Thereafter, the Tribunal passed order dated 11th January, 2001, dismissing the application for rectification of mistake.
1367 1369 of 2002 With CIVIL APPEAL NO S .
CIVIL APPEAL NO S .
Relying on these price lists, Department raised differential demand and issued show cause numberices to the appellant dated 22nd June, 1995, 4th July, 1995 and 1st November, 1995.
1370 1372 of 2002 BHAN, J. The assessee appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of chassis for various models and parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 for short the Tariff Act at its factory at Jamshedpur The appellant manufactures motor vehicles of various models.
