JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order No. A/10335/2016 dated 26th April 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] in Appeal No. C/10192/2016-DB; Application No. C/COD/1008/2016, dismissing the application preferred by the present appellant seeking condonation of delay of 332 days and consequently, dismissing the Appeal, the appellant has preferred this Tax Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1944 praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and to direct the Tribunal to hear the said Appeal of the appellant on merits, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Shri Devan Parikh, learned senior advocate appearing with learned advocate Mr. Raj K Vyas, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Shri Devan Parikh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has ex facie erred in not appreciating the law applicable to the present case. That, in such a case, no hyper technical view should have been taken by the Tribunal while condoning the delay. It is further urged that each and every day's delay is not to be interpreted in such a manner that the substantial justice would not be served and a meritorious case ought not to have been thrown out without applying due consideration on merits. That, in an application praying for condonation of delay, lenient view should have been taken by the Tribunal and the Appeal ought to have been decided on merits rather than dismissing the application on technicalities. Hence, it was requested by him to allow this Tax Appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned Order and thereby directing the Tribunal to hear the said Appeal on merits. 4. On the otherside, Shri Dhaval D Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposed the submissions made for and on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant is negligent in preferring the Appeal in time. That, the appellant was aware that the appeal was to be preferred by M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited from whom the appellant had purchased imported steam coal for necessary action at their end. That, the appellant was aware that the appeal was to be preferred by M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited from whom the appellant had purchased imported steam coal for necessary action at their end. However, no action was initiated by the appellant ascertaining the fact that whether the appeal had been preferred by the said M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited and filed till the reminder for recovery of dues was received from the Department. It is further urged that the appellant was fully aware of the fact that the reply to the show cause notice and the appeal before the learned Commissioner [Appeals] against the adjudication order had been filed through them only and the same cannot be independently filed by M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited. That the appellant cannot be benefited by its own negligence, therefore, it was requested by Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent to dismiss the present Appeal. 5. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made for and on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that the learned Tribunal in an application preferred by the present appellant to condone the delay of 332 days has taken very technical approach by dismissing the said application. It appears from the contents that the appellant had made a contract for purchase of steam coal with M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited. Accordingly, 2000 Mts. imported Indonesian steam coal was supplied by the said agency and the said steam coal purchased on high seas sale basis was supplied on the basis of final assessment of Bill of Entry No. 698370 dated 31st May 2012/2nd April 2012, for which M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited had raised an Invoice No. HSS005 dated 23rd May 2012 for Rs. 1,07,66,000/- and the appellant had made payment for the said bill to the said Agency. The question was whether the goods imported in the form of Steam Coal from Indonesia is steam coal or bituminous coal was pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, as outcome of the same on classification was awaited from the Larger Bench of the Tribunal at Chennai. It also appears that the appellant was issued a show cause notice being F. No. VIII/10-43/O&A/203 dated 19th September 2013. The said show cause notice was forwarded by the appellant to M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited for doing the needful in the matter. It also appears that the appellant was issued a show cause notice being F. No. VIII/10-43/O&A/203 dated 19th September 2013. The said show cause notice was forwarded by the appellant to M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited for doing the needful in the matter. That, the learned advocate was appointed and reply was filed on 7th February 2014 wherein hearing was also attended before the authority on 24th April 2014. After hearing, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Surat passed an Order-in-Original dated 27th May 2014 confirming the demand of difference in customs duty alongwith interest and penalty. That, thereafter the appellant filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals], Ahmedabad which came to be dismissed by an order dated 2nd December 2012. Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeal before the respondent praying to condone the delay of 332 days occurred in filing the aforesaid Appeal. It is stated by the appellant that since the goods were purchased as per the agreed price, there was no liability on the part of the appellant to pay additional amount and he had forwarded the said show cause notice to M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited for doing the needful. It is further stated that all this work was looked after by the representative of the agency viz., Natvar Darak, who was handed over the order passed by the Joint Commissioner Customs, Surat dated 27th May 2014 for onward action. The order dated 2nd December 2012 passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] in Order-in-Appeal No. AHD-000-APP-352-14-15 was also communicated to the appellant on 9th December 2014 and the same alongwith the other documents were forwarded to the representative Shri Natvar Darak of M/s. Ganpati Energy Private Limited with a request to do the needful in the matter, as the appellant had purchased the goods at the agreed price. As no action was taken by the said agency in preferring the appeal or challenging the impugned order, it appears that there was a bona fide delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal in time before the respondent. Therefore, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the case, the delay is of few days. Therefore, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the case, the delay is of few days. From the facts, as narrated in the appeal and urged by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the appellant was reasonably diligent in pursuing the appeal/applications before the competent authorities, and there was no negligence on his part in preferring the Appeal. A valuable right is secured to the successful party of which he should not be deprived of lightly. While dealing with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, the Court ought not to light heartedly disturb the legal right accrued to the appellant on failure to prefer the appeal or application within the time prescribed for it. The appellant has satisfied this Court by producing sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 332 days occurred in preferring the appeal. 6. Resultantly, Tax Appeal is allowed. The impugned Order No. A/10335/2016 dated 26th April 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. C/10192/2016-DB in Application No. C/COID/1018/2016 is hereby quashed and set-aside. 7. While issuing the notice against the respondent, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the registry of this Court towards the cost of the present litigation so far as the respondents are concerned on 30th November 2016. The said sum of amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the account of the respondent by an Account Payee Cheque in the name of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and the said cheque be handed over to Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 8. Needless to mention here that now the Tribunal shall decide the Appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.