JUDGMENT By the Court.—By means of the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi, (respondent No. 1) (Annexure A-3 to the Writ Petition). The petitioners have filed Appeals with the applications before the said Tribunal for condonation of delay. The said delay condonation applications were rejected on 13.10.2003 by the Tribunal holding that the applicants have not succeeded in explaining the delay in filing the Appeals, and consequently, the appeals were dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as follows : The petitioners are the Ex-Directors of M/s Kuwer Industries Ltd. which was engaged in the manufacturing of Metallised Plastic/Polyster films in the factory at A-71 and 72 Sector 58, NOIDA. Show-cause notices were served upon the petitioners on 9-3-2000 requiring the factory to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,77,55,229.00 may not be recovered on the clearance of Metallised Polyster Film cleared by it during the period April 1995 to September, 1996 clandestinely. The petitioners were also required to show cause as to why they may not be penalised under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioners submitted suitable replies rebutting all the allegations. After considering the replies of the petitioners, the Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA, vide order dated 30-10-2001, adjudicated the case and imposed penalties upon the petitioners and confirmed the demand of duty. There was some dispute between the Directors and the matter was referred for arbitration. The Arbitrator gave an award that the total assets and liabilities of the Company will remain with one J.B. Agrawal and the petitioners will have no concern with the working of the Company. The petitioners thereafter never attended either the registered office or the factory at NOIDA. Consequently, they were ignorant about the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. In May, 2002 , when the petitioners came to know that the Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA has already adjudicated the said show-cause notice and penalties have been imposed, then they applied to the Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA for supplying them a certified copy of the said adjudication order. Consequently, they were ignorant about the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. In May, 2002 , when the petitioners came to know that the Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA has already adjudicated the said show-cause notice and penalties have been imposed, then they applied to the Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA for supplying them a certified copy of the said adjudication order. According to the petitioners, the department made available the certified copies of the adjudication order on them on 17-7-2002. 3. The petitioners thereafter preferred Appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, now known as Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 11-10-2002 within the prescribed period of limitation provided under the Act. 4. An objection was raised regarding delay in filing the Appeals. The petitioners, as noted above, filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. 5. The delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that after 8-7-2001, the petitioners had no concern in the working of M/s Kuwer Industries Ltd. The order dated 30-10-2003 was not served upon the petitioners and when they came to know about the said adjudication order, they made application for issuance of the Certified copy of the order which was received by them only on 17-7-2002. 6. The Tribunal disbelieved the version of the petitioners that the copy of the order was not served upon the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the order was served on the last known address of the petitioners and the same was duly received by the Authorised Signatory of the Factory and, therefore, they have not made sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. The Tribunal rejected the aforesaid delay condonation applications and consequently the appeals. 7. We have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Srivastava holding brief for Sri K.C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. Sri Sunil Srivastava holding brief for Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise any objection to decide the writ petition on merits. 9. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners have not authorised anybody to receive the copy of the adjudication order on their behalf, and the Authorised Signatory, who received the same, was without any authority. 10. 9. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners have not authorised anybody to receive the copy of the adjudication order on their behalf, and the Authorised Signatory, who received the same, was without any authority. 10. Sri Sunil Srivastava submitted that the adjudication order was served on the Authorised Signatory of the Company, and therefore, service should be deemed sufficient. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the averments made in the writ petition as also the orders of the Tribunal. 12. There is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners have authorised anybody to receive the copy of the adjudication order on their behalf. The Authorised Signatory has received the adjudication order on behalf of M/s Kuwer Industries Ltd. and, therefore, the service of the adjudication order would not amount the service upon the petitioners. 13. It may be relevant to mention here that as per law it was incumbent upon the department to serve the adjucation order on the petitioners also. Therefore, the date of the service of the adjudication ought to have been treated as 17-7-2002 when the certified copy of the said order was made available to the petitioners. 14. In view of the above, the orders dated 7-4-2003 and 13-10-2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi, (respondent No. 1) cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The Appeal preferred by the petitioners is restored to its original, and the Tribunal is directed to decide the said Appeals on merits in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. ————