ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President
1. This matter had been cause listed yesterday. When it was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants and there was no report regarding compliance, if any with the conditions of the stay order dated 8.4.1985 in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 35F and the order was pronounced and dictated in the open Court.
2. However, today when the matter relating to Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. came before us, it came to our notice that Hon’ble Supreme Court had remanded that matter to the Tribunal and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order covered not merely the appeal with reference to the Tribunal’s order in the case of Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. but also the one with reference to the order in respect of M/s Gateway Papers Pvt. Ltd. As Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order referred to two appeals filed by the Department against the common order of the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid two parties and remanded both the cases with evidence in respect of the classification and an order of remand for the purpose of examining whether the show cause notices were time barred, therefore, we looked into the matter further and found that this order of Hon’ble Supreme Court refers to the Tribunal’s order No. 163 & 164/88-C dated 23.2.1988 in which inter-alia, para 4 relates to Gateway Papers Pvt. Ltd. and para 5 relates to M/s Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.
3. The issue involved was a common issue of classification of carbon paper. And we also further observed that the appeal of M/s Gateway Papers Pvt. Ltd. had been disposed of by this order of the Tribunal was E/2727/84-C i.e. the same ‘appeal’ which had come up before us yesterday and thus got dismissed as aforesaid. Therefore, prima-facie, it appears to us that some error had crept in our order passed yesterday. Hence, we called for the file and found that the order, though pronounced, has not been signed and issued. We, therefore, decide to consider whether there was an error on our part and therefore, whether it requires suo-moto correction.
4. We observe that there was an error which had crept in as neither of the Tribunal’s aforesaid order nor the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court was brought to our notice yesterday. Since the appeal No. E/2727/84-C filed by M/s Gateway Papers Pvt. Ltd. before the Tribunal had already been disposed of long back by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal (passed in common order with that of M/s Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co., namely, order No. 163 & 164/88-C dated 23.2.1988), therefore, it was an already disposed of matter which had been wrongly listed by the Registery apparently by mistake and in the absence of above information, the aforesaid order was passed. Since the matter already stood disposed of by the Tribunal’s aforesaid order, there was no need or cause for any further order and in any eventuality, the above action was erroneous. In these peculiar circumstances, we feel that it is our duty to correct this error suo-moto. We, therefore, recall this order.
5. As the matter had already been disposed of by the Tribunal technically it would have been ‘non est’ even it had been issued but as an abundant precaution and to make the position clear, we have passed the above order of recall. The aforesaid order dated 17.6.1997 is accordingly recalled and the matter taken up separately alongwith the case of M/s Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated October, 24, 1996 (passed in Civil Appeal No. 2621-22 (NM) of 1988 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Anr. v. Dico Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. and Anr.).
(Dictated in the open Court).