WA 121/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.SARMA (Amitava Roy, J) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.12.2006 passed in WP( C) No. 274/2002 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of the present appellants on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy of appeal available under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’), they (appellants) have sought remedial intervention o f a Division Bench. Heard Mr SN Sarma, learned senior counsel for the appellants assisted b y Mr AJ Das, learned counsel and Mr B Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Central E xcise & Customs for the official respondents. The learned senior counsel for the appellants, at the threshold, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, has submitted that having regard to the issues involved it would be in fitness of things that they (appellants) avai l the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35B of the Act. He, however, urge s upon this Court for a lenient approach vis-à-vis the delay meanwhile caused in availing the above remedy. He has pointed out that in terms of Section 35B.(3) of the Act the period of limitation for filing such appeal is three months. He s ubmits further that having regard to the nature of the order assailed in the acc ompanying writ petition it is one appealable under Section 35B of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise & Customs, however, has con tended that the appellants having consciously preferred the instant appeal being fully aware of the availability of alternative remedy as is now sought to be pu rsued, such a liberty ought not to be granted to them. The records reveal that the appellants being aggrieved by the order date d 28.9.2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong sustaining the deman d of excise duty under Section 11(a) of the Act and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,50 ,000/- under Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules had sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for annulment thereof inter alia on th e ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition w as instituted by the present appellants on 16.1.2002. The instant appeal was fil ed on 22.1.2007. Having regard to the aforementioned dates of institutions prima facie the appellants cannot be said to be unduly delayed in approaching this fo rum. The issues raised involve contentious facts and if the appellants seek to have t he same resolved by availing a statutory remedy, in the opinion of this Court, t hey ought to be permitted to do so subject to the law of limitation as engrafted in Section 35B.(3) and (5) of the Act. Noticeably, under sub-Section (5) of the Act the learned Appellate Tribunal has been empowered to entertain an appeal ev en after the expiry of the statutory period of three months if it is satisfied t hat there has been sufficient cause for the appellant for having failed to do so within the said period. In the above view of the matter, the prayer made on behalf of the appell ants is allowed. The appeal stands closed without offering any comment on the me rits of the rival pleas of the parties. The appellants are left at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Appell ate Tribunal for necessary reliefs. It would be in their discretion, if they see k to pursue their remedy by way of appeal before the learned Tribunal, to file a ppropriate application for condonation of the delay that has occurred meanwhile. As the appellants by filing the instant appeal have sought to avail a re medy allowable under the Rules framed by this Court, if this plea is mentioned i n the application for condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal would take note of the same while passing orders thereon. No costs.