ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the manufacturer whose appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 2. From the record, we notice that aggrieved by the order of the Excise Authorities, the company has filed appeal before the Tribunal. There was a delay of about 70 days. Application for condonation of delay was filed. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 16.09.2005 holding that proper explanation for delay has not been given. This order was passed in absence of the representatives of the company. Company therefore filed application for rectification which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 06.02.2006, upon which, this appeal was filed. 3. We have perused materials on record which present extremely unfortunate facts. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the company had stated, inter alia, that the legal matters were looked after by one Shri Kalpesh Bhatt, Executive (Taxation). He left the job in September, 2004. The fact of the appellate order passed against the company was noticed only in July, 2005, when combined recoveries were raised by the department. We may recall that the companies were seeking to explain the delay of about 70 days. Courts have time and again pressed on the requirement of reasonable and liberal approach in condoning the delay, particularly when the delay is not very long and the explanation is reasonable. Unfortunately, the Tribunal brushed aside the explanation of the applicant without any discussion and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The tragedy of the matter does not end here. This Tax Appeal was filed in the year 2006 and remained pending all this while, nearly for 12 years. The appellants could have at least brought these facts to the notice of this Court for out of turn hearing. No such attempt was made. After more than a decade now we would be remanding the proceedings before the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits which should have happened in the first instance and in any case, would have been the order passed by the Court if the appellant had been vigilant enough to press the appeal for early hearing. No such attempt was made. After more than a decade now we would be remanding the proceedings before the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits which should have happened in the first instance and in any case, would have been the order passed by the Court if the appellant had been vigilant enough to press the appeal for early hearing. Counsel for the appellant however, submitted that issue is otherwise on merits covered in favour of the company by virtue of the judgment of the Tribunal. Even Supreme Court judgments support the case of the appellant. It would be tragic if a case otherwise on merits would be destroyed by delay and passage of time. The impugned order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside. The delay caused in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits expeditiously. 4. Tax Appeal along with Civil Application (OJ) stands disposed of accordingly.