Judgment :- At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm had submitted that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the first respondent herein, had dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal and for waiver of the pre-deposit amount, by the impugned order, dated 21.2.2006. 2. The reasons stated on behalf of the petitioner firm, for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, had not been considered by the first respondent, while passing the order, dated 21.2.2006. Since, the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned, the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.E/873/04-E/PD/457/04-E/COD/352/04, had been dismissed by the first respondent appellate tribunal, without going into the merits of the matter. In such circumstances, the petitioner firm had filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It has also been stated that this Court had admitted the writ petition, on 29.3.2006, and had also granted an order of interim injunction, in W.P.M.P.No.9686 of 2006, restraining the respondents from implementing the Final Order No.125/2006, dated 21.2.2006, passed by the first respondent and from recovering the amount, said to be due from the petitioner firm, on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, on or before 27.4.2006, as part of the said amount, before the appropriate authority. It has been further stated that the said amount of Rs.5,00,00/-had been paid by the petitioner firm, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 29.3.2006. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the averments and the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that, from the impugned order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 21.2.2006, it is clear that there is no justification, whatsoever, for the delay caused by the petitioner firm, in filing the appeal, before the first respondent Tribunal. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 5. It has been stated that, from the impugned order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 21.2.2006, it is clear that there is no justification, whatsoever, for the delay caused by the petitioner firm, in filing the appeal, before the first respondent Tribunal. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner firm has become defunct and that it would not be in a position to pay any further amount, towards the amount said to be due from the petitioner firm. He had also submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner firm, before the first respondent, in Appeal No.E/873/04-E/PD/457/04-E/COD/352/04 could be directed to be disposed of within a specified time and that the petitioner firm would fully cooperate in the enquiry to be conducted by the first respondent appellate Tribunal. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the parties concerned, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on their behalf, the impugned order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 21.2.2006, is set aside and the first respondent Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner firm, in appeal No.E/873/04-E/PD/457/04-E/COD/352/04 and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the second respondent herein, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall fully cooperate in the proceedings before the first respondent appellate tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.9686 of 2006 is closed.