IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 265 OF 2009 IN CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE ... Applicant Versus M/S NARAYAN BANDEKAR AND SONS PVT.LTD., ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Fereira, Assistant Solicitor General for the applicants. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 20th March, 2009 P.C. This is an application filed by the Department for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing the appeal. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted by Mr. Fereira, learned Asst. Solicitor General that the CESTAT refused to grant interim relief, and the appeal was fixed for final disposal on 8.7.2008. He has taken us through para 4 of the impugned Order of the CESTAT, which reads as under: "At this juncture both sides submitted that the matter may be heard out of turn. We accept the submissions and direct the registry to list the appeal for out of turn hearing on 8.7.2008. On request of the Sr. Counsel liberty is given too the respondent to file written submissions." 2. It is pointed out by the learned Asst. Solicitor General that since CESTAT by its order dated 26/3/2008 posted the hearing of the appeal for final disposal on 8.7.2008 and bonafidely believing that the appeal itself would be disposed of by that time, the applicant waited for the decision in the main appeal. However, subsequently, the matter was adjourned and the hearing was not concluded, and in the meanwhile the respondent also filed Writ Petition No.791/2008 before this Court seeking refund of the amount in respect of which the appeal was pending and no stay was granted by the CESTAT. As such, in the process, there is a delay of 133 days in filing the appeal against interim order. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant accepted the decision of the CESTAT and decided not to file any appeal and allowed the limitation to lapse. He submitted that the appeal has been filed as an afterthought and that the applicant now cannot file appeal. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and anr. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1981 SC 733. As against this, learned Assistant Solicitor General has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Courts should adopt liberal approach. 4. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that when the Tribunal itself had decided to hear the main appeal immediately, it cannot be said that the Department was totally negligent in not filing the appeal in time, as according to the applicant they were under impression that the appeal would be decided finally, in which interim relief was refused by the CESTAT. The interim relief is not granted by the Tribunal and now since the respondent has filed Writ Petition No.791/2008 seeking refund of the amount in respect of which appeal is pending, it would be just and proper to condone the delay and examine the appeal on merits. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal, however, subject to payment of costs, which is quantified at Rs.3000/-. The costs shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the said costs. Misc. Civil Application is allowed and disposed off. The appeal be registered and placed for admission. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.