Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. The West Bengal State ... on 17 July, 2023
OD-4
CEXA No. 3 of 2007
IA NO: GA/2/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CENTRAL EXCISE)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA
VS
M/S. THE WEST BENGAL STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (TANTUJA)
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 17th July, 2023
Appearance :
Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Soumyajyoti Nandy, Adv.
Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv.
... for the applicant
Ms. Rajashree Kundalia, Adv.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv.
... for the appellant
The Court : This application has been filed to condone the delay
in filing this application for recalling and recall the judgement and
order dated 24th February, 2023, passed in CEXA 3 of 2007 and
restore the appeal.
2
We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
Firstly, the limitation needs to be computed from the date on which
the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2023 was received by
the appellant and not from the date on which the recovery notice was
issued by the Department dated 22nd June, 2023. In any event,
judgment has been passed placing reliance on an earlier order in
CEXA No.4 of 2007, dated 9th September, 2022. It was filed by the
Department against a common order passed by the Tribunal.
The learned standing counsel for the respondent Department
pointed out that when the appeal was entertained in the year 2007 an
application for interim relief was sought for which was dismissed after
notice to the assessee. It is thereafter the matter was pending before
this Court and subsequently listed in the warning list and thereafter
in the daily list and since none appeared the Court considered the
matter on merits and rendered its finding.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously
contend that in terms of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta,
Original Side 2014, more particularly, with regard to Rule 7, there is
mandatory condition that after the appeal is admitted or statement of
case is received, as the case may be, the appellant/applicant shall
prepare the paper book within three months and shall file two copies
thereof for the use of the Division Bench. It is further submitted that
in terms of Rule 7.3, in the event paper book is not filed within three
months from the date of admission of the appeal or receipt of the
statement of the case, as the case may be, with the leave of the Court,
respondent, the respondent may prepare and deliver such paper book
or he may apply upon notice to the party at whose instance the appeal
was preferred or reference was made to have the appeal or reference
dismissed for want of prosecution or for such other order or orders.
Further, it is stated that the Rule also states that where no such
application is made, the case shall be set down in the next peremptory
list of revenue appeals/references and shall be disposed of by the
Court as it shall think fit.
In our considered view, it will be too late for the appellant to
take umbrage under Rule 7, more particularly, when they were served
at an interlocutory stage in the year 2007 itself when the prayer for
stay made by the department was refused. Further reference has also
been made to Rule 9 which relates to the notice for filing of paper
book. From the conduct of the applicant/respondent, it is clearly
seen that they were not diligent in prosecuting the matter and they
have come out with such an application at such a belated stage
without even specifically mentioning as to the exact number of days in
filing the application as payer (a) in the application states, delay, if
any, in filing the instant application for recalling may be also
condoned.
In the light of the above facts, we are not inclined to entertain
this application and the same is dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
SN/S.Das
AR(CR)
