IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 34929 of 2000(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR ASST SG RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE CUSTOMS, EXCUSE & GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. M/S. PRIME ALLOYS (P) LTD. 9/79, ANAPURAMKADU, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. M/S. PREMIUM FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD., EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM, ALUVA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 59629/2000 IN OP NO. 34929/2000 G. DISMISSED 27/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3A. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (GOLD CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI. True copy tga T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.34929 of 2000-G. ======================= Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P2 order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal whereby application seeking for condoning delay of the appeals have been dismissed. There was delay of 41 days and 83 days respectively. In Ext.P2 the Tribunal has rejected the application stating that there is no cause to condone the delay in the matter. The contention taken is that the delay has been properly explained and at any rate a liberal view ought to have been taken since the Department had filed these appeals with bonafides. 2. Heard the learned Asst.Solicitor General for the petitioner and the Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently submitted that there was no proper explanation for the delay and O.P.No.34929 of 2000-G. -: 2 :- therefore the view taken by he Tribunal is correct. The Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji & others (1987(2) SC 1353) that the Court has to adopt a liberal approach. The reasons shown for the delay are acceptable. There is proper explanation for the delay. In the light of the above, I find that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and heard the parties on merits. Therefore Ext.P2 is quashed. The Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal will hear the appeal on merits after notice to both the parties. With the above direction this Original Petition is disposed of. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-