Judgment D.K.Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 25-9-2003 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) in Appeal No. E/COD/122/ 03-NB(S) & STAY/1060/03- NB (S) with E/Appeal No. 1658/03- NB(S). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioners application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 105 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Since the controversy raised in the present writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. It would suffice to note that the petitioner, aggrieved by the decision, dated 8-8-2002, of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh (for short, the Commissioner) dismissing the appeal in limine on account of failure on its part to comply with the order of pre-deposit, had preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Since the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application for condonation of delay was also filed along with it. In the said application, it was pleaded that since the factory of the petitioner was lying closed since February, 1999, one of its representatives, namely, Karanvir Singh was called to the office of the Central Excise Department and was served with order dated 8-8-2002; the said Karanvir Singh shifted to Delhi without informing the management about the receipt of the said order and when later on, the management of the petitioner learnt about the same, it took steps to file the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. 3. The explanation furnished has not found favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the bald plea of the petitioner that the order of the Commissioner was brought to Directors notice only on 25-3-2003 was not a sufficient reason to condone the delay. The Tribunal has also not found any substance in the stand of the petitioner that though the administrative activities were closed since February, 1999, but still its representatives were pursuing the matter with the lower authorities even in the year 2001 and therefore, Commissioners order should have been brought to their notice. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. The Tribunal has also not found any substance in the stand of the petitioner that though the administrative activities were closed since February, 1999, but still its representatives were pursuing the matter with the lower authorities even in the year 2001 and therefore, Commissioners order should have been brought to their notice. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has not only failed to consider the cause for delay in filing the appeal in its correct perspective, it has also gone wrong in not acceding to the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner on account of his personal difficulty, particularly when it was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that even the Director of the petitioner was sick. Learned counsel has submitted that after the factory had been closed down, the afore-named employee had also left the petitioner because of non-payment of his salary. The order passed by the Commissioner came to the knowledge of the management only when the department started recovery proceedings. Learned counsel thus, submits that all these factors constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and these could have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, had an opportunity been given to the counsel. 5. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Guglani, learned Central Government Counsel, while supporting the order of the Tribunal, submits that since in the first instance the petitioner did not comply with the order of pre-deposit passed by the Commissioner, no ground is available to it to challenge the order and therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal was otherwise misconceived. Learned counsel, however, contends that in case this Court is inclined to remit the matter back for re-consideration on merits, the petitioner should be asked to comply with Commissioners order of pre- deposit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that though neither the delay in filing the appeal nor a request for adjournment of a case is to be condoned or granted on a more asking, but both the requests have to be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach, rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause. The supreme importance is the adherence to the principle of natural justice, commonly known as the audi alteram partem rule. The supreme importance is the adherence to the principle of natural justice, commonly known as the audi alteram partem rule. None should be condemned unheard. We do not propose to dwell into this issue in further detail as we feel that having regard to the facts on hand and in order to cut-short the life of litigation, the interest of justice would be subserved if the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case. 7. Accordingly, we set aside orders dated 25-9-2003 (Annexure P.8) and 8-8-2002 (Annexure P.5) and remit the case back to the Commissioner for deciding Appeal No. 307/CE/CHD-1/02 on merits, subject to the petitioners complying with the order of pre-deposit dated 27-9-2001 within 2 weeks from today. The petitioner shall also deposit, within the same time, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab. 8. The receipted challans shall be produced in the office of the Commissioner for fixing the date of hearing of the appeal immediately thereafter. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.