ORDER Mahanty, J. - A memo of appearance of Sri Tanmoy Chakravarty, Learned Counsel for the respondent filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Tusharkanti Satpathy, Learned Counsel for the Central Excise authorities as well as Sri Chakravarty and Sri Mukesh Panda for the respondent. 3. This appeal has come up to be filed by the Revenue seeking to challenge an Order No. FO/A/75805/2015, dated 23-12-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, EZB, Kolkata (for short, CESTAT) [2016 (43) S.T.R. 124 (Tri.-Kol.)] and in the prayer portion has also sought for restoring the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, CESTAT, Bhubaneswar-1 on 5-5-2014. 4. At the initial stage, Sri Chakravarty on behalf of the respondent brought to the notice of the Court that the present appeal is not maintainable since the respondent had come before this Court against the order dated 23-12-2015 [2016 (43) S.T.R. 124 (Tribunal)] passed by the Learned CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata and this Court by order dated 30-8-2016 in OTAPL No. 5 of 2016 [ 2017 (345) E.L.T. 639 (Ori.)] allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent with the following observation and direction : "In view of the aforesaid facts, we allow the present OTAPL by setting aside the impugned order dated 23-12-2015 under Annexure-2. Apart from the aforesaid direction, we are of the considered view that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2.00 crores (by way of reversal CENVAT credit) within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be accepted as pre-deposit for the purpose of entertaining the said appeal and the appeal may be heard and disposed of expeditiously on its own merits. It is further observed herein that the Tribunal shall do well to proceed with the matter without in any manner being influenced by its earlier order which is quashed herein or by any observation made by us in the present order. The appellant shall act in terms of the order relating to deposit as noted hereinabove. With such aforesaid observation and direction, the OTAPL is disposed of." We are further informed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent that after the matter remanded back, i.e., OTAPL No. 5 of 2016, the same is pending before the Learned CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata. 5. The appellant shall act in terms of the order relating to deposit as noted hereinabove. With such aforesaid observation and direction, the OTAPL is disposed of." We are further informed by the Learned Counsel for the respondent that after the matter remanded back, i.e., OTAPL No. 5 of 2016, the same is pending before the Learned CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata. 5. It would be pertinent herein to take note of the fact that the CESTAT at EZB, Kolkata disposed of the appeal filed by the respondent on 23-12-2015. It appears that the respondent being aggrieved by the said order, had challenged the same by filing OTAPL No. 5 of 2016. The Revenue, on the other hand, appeared to have filed a petition for rectification before the CESTAT, which came to be rejected by order dated 8-8-2016 and communicated to the Revenue on 22-8-2016. Sri Satpathy, on behalf of the Revenue submits that since the present appeal came up to be filed on 17-2-2017, which is within 180 days as mandated for the purpose of filing the present appeal. 6. Sri Satpathy fairly submits that the fact that the respondent had come in appeal against the original order of CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata is not known to the Revenue at the time of filing of the instant appeal due to lack of communication. 7. In our considered view, since the order-in-original passed by the CESTAT, EZB, dated 23-12-2015 has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 30-8-2016 in OTAPL No. 5 of 2016, the present appeal has become infructuous and we find no basis for entertaining the same. Accordingly, the OTAPL is dismissed as infructuous. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.