IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.2654 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Vasavi Agencies, Main Road, Rajam - 532 127, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Partner Sri M. Prakash Rao, S/o. Venkata Ramana. ...PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I, Commissionerate, Central Revenue Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 035. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Misc.Order No. 581/2007, Star Order No. 884/2007 and final order No. 1345/2007, dt. 28-11-2007 in E/COD/98/2007 in E/144./2007 passed by Hon'ble CESTAT, Southern Bench at Bangalore and to quash the same and to allow the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S.MOHAN VINOD & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.2654 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel on either side. In this Writ Petition, the main challenge is against the order rejecting an application seeking condonation of delay of 214 days in filing the regular appeal. The reason given in support of the application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) is that having regard to the appeal filed by the party and subsequent allowing of the appeal, the delay may be condoned. After contest by the respondent and taking into consideration the submissions made on either side, the Tribunal did not find favour with the petitioner mainly on the ground that the application for condonation of delay has been filed only after disposal of the appeal and that the petitioner is fully aware of the proceedings and consequential allowing of the appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the sequence, which did not follow as a result of the appeal being allowed, where the rights of the petitioner are substantiated, the reason given in support of the application is sufficient enough to give an opportunity to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that in an application of this nature, an endeavour should be made to give an opportunity where substantial rights are sought to be affected. The delay is accordingly condoned. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal shall take up the main appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 3rd March 2008 Note: Wire at party’s cost B/O RRB