Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 5th July, 2001. An application for recalling of the said order has since been filed. After hearing Mr. Chowdhury and Mr. Samaddar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that the writ petition has not become infructuous. Accordingly, the order dated 5th of July, 2001 is hereby recalled.
(2.) After the above order was passed, by consent of parties, the writ petition is treated as on day's List and is taken up for hearing. Both the learned Counsel have addressed the Court on merits.
(3.) The bone of contention in the present writ petition is as to whether tyre warps would be excisable under Item 18 or under Item 22. In the present case the tyre warps have been sought to be included in Item 22 and accordingly, a demand was levied on the petitioner. In the ensued proceeding petitioner had participated in the hearing and before any order was passed this writ petition was moved and certain interim orders were obtained. However, there was no interim order restraining the authorities from passing order in the proceedings, the hearing of which was concluded. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Samaddar has no instruction with regard to the outcome of the proceedings. However, Mr. Chowdhury submits on instruction that no order has since been passed even after closure of the hearing and though there was no interim order restraining the passing of such order.;