Judgment ( 1. ) IN this writ petition petitioner has assailed the orders (P-8), (P-9) and (P-10), appellate orders (P-13) and (P-17) and the order passed by the CEGAT. ( 2. ) PETITIONER M/s. Santosh Engineering is a proprietorship concern of Shri Santosh Awasthi, an engineer, used to manufacture evaporative type of coolers. The unit was set up in the year 1984. It went into commercial production in February, 1985. Initially the goods manufactured by the petitioners were exempted from payment of excise duty if the turnover in any financial year does not exceed Rs. 2. 50 lacs. Exemption notification (P-l) to the aforesaid effect was issued on 1-3-1983. By yet another Notification No. 65/83 (P-2), the said notification (P-l) was amended. It was provided that in case if the turnover exceeds from Rs. 2. 50 lacs but up to Rs. 30 lacs, in that event the small scale industry manufacturer would be entitled to avail of payment of concessional rate of excise duty at the rate of 50%. Petitioner realized during financial year 1986-87 that his annual turnover may exceed the limit of Rs. 2. 50 lacs, he applied for grant of license, which was issued on 1-4-1986. Petitioner started making payment of excise duty at the concessional rate of 50% of the rate of excise duty and started availing the benefit of Modvat on inputs as he was holding a license. During financial year 1986-87, Notification (P-3) No. 265/86, dated 24-4-1986 was issued. The product of the petitioner was exempted from payment of excise duty by enhancing the limit from 2. 50 lacs to Rs. 15. 00 lacs. The notification further provided that till the petitioner exceed a turnover of Rs. 10 lacs, they were exempted from license. Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-6-1986 exempting from license was issued on 1-6-1966. Petitioner surrendered the license for cancellation on 12-5-1966 and applied for refund of duty deposited between 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986 as by that time, they had not exceeded the exemption limit as provided in the notification. Superintendent, Central Excise wrote to the petitioner that the license granted to the petitioner cannot be cancelled because they have already availed of the Modvat in the beginning of financial year. Show cause notice was issued and three orders (P-8), (P-9) and (P-10) were passed for the different period. Superintendent, Central Excise wrote to the petitioner that the license granted to the petitioner cannot be cancelled because they have already availed of the Modvat in the beginning of financial year. Show cause notice was issued and three orders (P-8), (P-9) and (P-10) were passed for the different period. Order (P-8) was passed for the period 16-7-1986 to 31-3-1987, (P-9) was passed for the period 27-4-1986 to 15-7-1986 and order (P-10) was passed for 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986, determining the total turnover of the petitioner and imposing the liability for excise duty. Petitioner filed a writ petition W. P. No. 3262/1987 as against the aforesaid three orders (P-8) to (P-10), which was admitted for final hearing. However, petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of filing the appeals as per order (P-11) dated 22-8-1989 passed by this Court. Appeals were required to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner accordingly filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty days but one common appeal was filed as against the three orders instead of three appeals. The Appellate Authority entertained the appeal with respect to the first order and gave the liberty to the petitioner to file two separate appeals with respect to two others orders. Appeal covering the period 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986 was entertained in relation to refund. Petitioner thereafter, assailed the appellate order before CEGAT by way of filing appeal, in which order (P-18) was passed dismissing the appeal. Petitioner also preferred two separate appeals No. 72/92 and 73/92, which was "as per" the liberty granted by the Appellate Authority, however, appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as barred by limitation as this Court has given thirty days time to file the appeals and only one common appeal was filed, thus appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation as per common order (P-16) passed in the aforesaid two appeals. An appeal was also filed as against the aforesaid order (P-16) before CEGAT, which was also dismissed as per order (P-17) dated 10-7-1997, hence this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the aforesaid orders. ( 3. ) SHRI A. D. Deoras, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once exemption was granted w. e. f. 24-4-1986 to the evaporative coolers, in case total turnover does not exceed Rs. ( 3. ) SHRI A. D. Deoras, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once exemption was granted w. e. f. 24-4-1986 to the evaporative coolers, in case total turnover does not exceed Rs. 15 lacs, same has to be given effect to for the entire financial year w. e. f. 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1987, thus refund of the excise duty, which was paid by the petitioner, was required to be made. ( 4. ) IT is further submitted that turnover did not exceed more than Rs. 15 lacs, hence petitioner was not liable to make payment of excise duty for the financial year 1986-87. It is further submitted that as writ petition was preferred, due to mistake one common appeal was preferred which was technical mistake, appeal ought to have been entertained in any case. Dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation by the Appellate Authority and the orders passed in appeals, are bad in law. On hyper technical ground the appeal relating to the period 27-4-1986 to 15-7-1986 and 16-7-1986 to 31-7-1987, have been dismissed, thus the Appellate Authority be directed to condone the delay in the circumstances of the case, as expeditiously steps were taken, the delay ought to have been condoned particularly in view of the fact that this Court had admitted the writ petition and thereafter directed the appeals to be preferred. ( 5. ) SHRI Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that exemption notification was issued on 24-4-1986, though there was reference in the notification that during financial year turnover should not exceed more than Rs. 15 lacs, however, exemption is to be applicable w. e. f. the date on which the goods were notified to be exempted, thus for practical purposes the date of issuance of exemption notification is material after which date the petitioner can claim exemption, as such refund has been rightly declined. No case for interference in this writ petition is made out. Petitioner ought to have preferred separate appeals as against the separate orders, which was not done even after liberty was granted by this Court. "appeals" were required to be filed within a period of thirty days but only one appeal was preferred, thus petitioner did not avail the limitation granted by this Court, hence the appeals preferred beyond the period of limitation were rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. "appeals" were required to be filed within a period of thirty days but only one appeal was preferred, thus petitioner did not avail the limitation granted by this Court, hence the appeals preferred beyond the period of limitation were rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The order has been affirmed by the CEGAT, hence no case for interference in this writ petition is made out. ( 6. ) FIRST coming to the question of refund for the period 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986. It is not in dispute that petitioner started availing the benefit of Modvat on inputs as he was holding a license, though exemption notification provided that turnover should not exceed Rs. 15 lacs in the category of exempted goods during financial year, however, it is not in dispute that evaporative type of coolers were exempted by making amendment in the aforesaid notification w. e. f. 24-4-1986, thus the date of exemption is material. The exemption cannot co-relate to the period 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986. No doubt turn over is to be considered within the financial year, however, exemption is to be prospective as rightly held by the CEGAT, the Appellate Authority w. e. f. the date on which goods were exempted from payment of excise duty. There is no indication that retrospective effect was sought to be given to exemption from the excise duty, thus it has been rightly held that goods were exempted with the prospective effect on 24-4-86, thus refund which was prayed for, has been rightly denied to the petitioner. Petitioner was not entitled for refund of the excise duty paid before 24-4-1966. ( 7. ) COMING to the question of dismissal of two appeals No. 72/92 and 73/92. It is not in dispute that as against the three orders (P-8), (P-9) and (P-10) a writ petition was preferred in this Court, which was admitted and finally decided as per order (P-ll); petitioner was relegated to alternative remedy of filing the appeals but due to mistake only one joint appeal was filed instead of three appeals, which was technical flaw, thereafter the two appeals which petitioner preferred as per direction of appellate authority were dismissed on the ground of delay. The delay ought to have been condoned in the circumstances of the case, as joint appeal was preferred within thirty days which was the period given by this Court, interest of justice required that delay was condoned and decision was rendered on merit of the appeals preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner could not have been penalized as he was relegated to the alternative remedy by this Court. ( 8. ) RESULTANTLY, writ petition is allowed in part. The orders (P-16) and (P-17) which were passed dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation are hereby set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeals No. 72/92 and 73/92 on merits. Writ petition with respect to assailing the order (P-13) and (P-18) is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred on this petition.