Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner seeks to challenge an Order No. A/301/03/nb (SM), dated 18-2-2003 (Ann.-P/1), passed by the CEGAT in Appeal Nos. E/2382/01-NB (SM), E/co/131/02, E/co/323/02-NB (SM), which in turn arise out of an order passed in Appeal No. 413-CE/bpl/2001, dated 22-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri R. Nair, L. C. for petitioner and Shri T. N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for respondents. ( 3. ) IN view of the order that I propose to pass, I do not wish to burden my order with the detailed facts. In my opinion, it is not necessary to narrate them. It is also for the reason that short point is involved in the petitioner namely whether the Tribunal should have granted an adjournment to the petitioner on 18-2-2003 for arguing the appeal on merits or not? According to learned Counsel it was a fit case where an adjournment prayed for by the petitioner (respondent in appeal before the CEGAT) ought to have been granted in the larger interest of the parties and a case to that effect was made out. It was his submission that the petitioner was not indulging in any delaying tactics nor had sought any adjournment in past except the one which was being prayed for on that day (18-2-2003 ). Though learned Counsel for respondent Revenue opposed this prayer, in my view in the larger interest of the parties and keeping in view the settled observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 ; I am inclined to accept the submissions pressed into service by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 4. ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singhs case (supra) made the following observations : "a Code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leave no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Too technical a construction of sections that leave no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Our Laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, the decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle. " The subtle observations made by the eminent Judge Hon. Mr. Justice Vivian Bose are far reaching. These observations must always be kept in consideration by all authorities who are entrusted with the power to decide the rights of the parties. These observations were also taken note of by this Court in a case reported in 2003 (157) E. L. T. 5 (M. P.) in somewhat similar case. ( 5. ) IN my considered opinion it was a fit case where the adjournment should have been granted to the petitioner by the CEGAT by imposing cost upon them. It was much more so when the appeal of the Government was being allowed against the petitioner without granting them an opportunity of being heard. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid discussions, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 18-2-2003 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. As a condition of restoration of the appeal, for its hearing on merits, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand) by way of cost with respondent No. 3, i. e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Indore before the date of hearing of the appeal. It is made clear that this court has not applied its mind to the merits of the case involved in appeal. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand) by way of cost with respondent No. 3, i. e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Indore before the date of hearing of the appeal. It is made clear that this court has not applied its mind to the merits of the case involved in appeal. Under these circumstances the Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court if made on merits and shall proceed to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to argue the case. The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 27th September, 2004 and will produce a copy of this order to enable the Tribunal to fix the case for hearing of the appeal on merits as an outer limit. The Tribunal shall ensure disposal of the appeal within six months. It is made clear that petitioner will not seek any adjournment on the date so fixed by the Tribunal for hearing and will ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal on merits. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/-, if certified. C. c. within a week.