Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant herein had failed to appear before the Tribunal either in person or through authorised representative, namely, V.Jayapalan, Advocate, Trichy and Mr.M.Masilamani, MA, IRS, Tax Consultant, who have filed the appeal on behalf of the present appellant along with an application for condonation of delay. On two occasions, the matter was listed before the Tribunal for appearance of the appellant or the authorised representative and none appeared to prosecute the matter. The Tribunal has no other option except to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application as well as the main appeal. As against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: “a. Whether the first respondent – Tribunal was right in law in having completely ignored the medical certificate filed in support of the delay condonation petition and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that none appeared for the appellant before it? b. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in having rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant is perverse and arbitrary given the fact that the appellant had been mulcted with huge liability of service tax and penalty without being afforded a chance to contest the matter on merits? 3. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the Tribunal should not adopt such a pedantic approach in matters of condonation of delay. It is also stated that the technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice on merits and the Apex Court in number of cases held that the delay on day-to-day basis need not be explained. It is further stated that when the delay is pitted against merits of any matter, the delay has to be condoned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant was suffering from ailment, he was not in a position to appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the matter. The medical certificate issued by the doctor in this regard was also enclosed along with the condone delay petition. But the Tribunal ignored the medical certificate and dismissed the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant was suffering from ailment, he was not in a position to appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the matter. The medical certificate issued by the doctor in this regard was also enclosed along with the condone delay petition. But the Tribunal ignored the medical certificate and dismissed the petition. In support of her plea, she relied on the decision of this Court dated 18.6.2014 in C.M.A.No.1587 of 2014, wherein, this Court condoned the delay on payment of cost. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. We find no reason as to why the appellant or the advocate or the tax consultant did not appear on two occasions when the matter was listed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had no other option except to dismiss the case for non-prosecution, as no one turned up despite being given two adjournments. The Tribunal is already loaded with large number of cases and if such conduct is encouraged, it only leads to clogging the wheels of justice. There are so many other litigants who are waiting for hearing of their cases with diligence. In the present case, the appellant is not serious in pursing the matter either by himself or through the consultant or through advocate. The Appellate Court is not a Court of remedy for lethargy and laid back attitude of the party. It has become very common in filing appeals along with an application seeking condonation of delay by stating trivial reasons. If Courts are liberal in granting such relief, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and waste of valuable judicial time. 7. In this regard, we are inclined to consider the issue in the light of the decision reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547 (Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others), where the Apex Court enunciated the following guidelines: "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can be broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an Application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can be broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an Application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the Counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The Concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former Doctrine of Prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the Application are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of Law of Limitation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of Law of Limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are : (a) An Application for Condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. (b) An Application for Condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 8. The decision of this Court dated 18.6.2014 in C.M.A.No.1587 of 2014 in the case of M/s.Tojo Tyre Retread v. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others) relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. There, the matter was represented before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disbelieved the version of the appellant that he was ill and dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Here, the appellant or his representative did not appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the matter. We are not inclined to follow the procedure adopted in that order and the present case does not warrant accepting condonation of delay on payment of costs. Here, the appellant or his representative did not appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the matter. We are not inclined to follow the procedure adopted in that order and the present case does not warrant accepting condonation of delay on payment of costs. In the present case, since no explanation has been offered for non-appearance of the party or the advocate or the tax consultant on two occassions and no reason is stated in the grounds of appeal before us, we have no other option except to confirm the order of the Tribunal. 9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been repeatedly stated that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the medical certificate issued for the purpose of condonation of delay. We have taken pains to peruse such a certificate filed at page 26 of the typed set of papers. It says that the appellant was suffering from HT- Angina and is advised not to travel long distance, since 20.7.2012 to 24.4.2013. The mere certificate from a doctor without any corresponding record, to show that the appellant was taking medical treatment during that period, cannot be accepted. Even the affidavit filed in support of the condonation petition says ill health supported by this certificate, which is bereft of details. It is also not clear whether this certificate was issued by the doctor, who treated the appellant and the certificate was issued on the basis of some material. The condonation of delay based on such vague affidavit and supporting vague certificate does not inspire this Court to consider the plea that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal. 10. The principles enunciated in the decision reported in 2013 (5) CTC 547 (Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and others) make it very clear that lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. The affidavit and supporting certificate filed for condonation of delay may not merit consideration if it is tested on the parameters of paragraph 16 of the decision of the Apex Court. As we find that the party has not shown any diligence in pursuing the matter, we find no reason to entertain the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.