JUDGMENT : J. B. Pardiwala, J. 1. The Tax Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1960 is ordered to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law. :- “(i) Whether or not the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without considering financial hardships of the appellant and rejecting the review application also without considering any of the aspect of the matter? (ii) Whether or not the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in not condoning delay in contravention of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide matters on merits? (iii) Whether or not the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in not considering any of the grounds of appeal on merits when the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (iv) Whether or not the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in not following principle of natural justice and deciding the appeal on delay?” 2. Having regard to the questions referred to above, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.12.2015, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. It also appears from the materials on record that the Review Application was filed, however, the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 30th October 2018. 4. The appellant-herein is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of import of metal scraps. The premises of the appellant was searched by the Officers of the DRI, Ahmedabad. Later, a show cause notice dated 14th August 2018 came to be issued. The case put up by the department in the show cause notice is one of under valuation of the imported metal scraps. 5. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand notice vide order-in-original dated 6th December 2013. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the adjudicating authority, preferred appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15th October 2014. Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. By the time, the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal the period of limitation has expired. The appellant preferred an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The tribunal passed an order upon the said application dated 12.11.2015. Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. By the time, the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal the period of limitation has expired. The appellant preferred an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The tribunal passed an order upon the said application dated 12.11.2015. The order reads thus :- “The Applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of filing of appeal of 233 days. Shri A.I. Khatri, Proprietor of the Applicant appeared before the Bench in person. He submits that the Applicant is facing acute financial hardships and therefore, he is unable to engage the lawyer. 2. At this stage, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Applicant has not disclosed the reasons for delay in their application. The learned representative of the Applicant firm seeks time to explain the delay by an affidavit. In view of that, the matter is adjourned to 08.12.2015.” 6. It appears that the appellant-herein in the form of a letter dated 07.12.2015 explained the circumstances, in which the appeal could not be preferred in time. 7. The sufficient cause assigned by the appellant did not find favour with the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and subsequently, the appeal came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.12.2015. The order dated 08.12.2015 reads thus :- “The applicant filed this application for condonation of filing appeal of 242 days. Earlier, the Tribunal by Interim Order No.562/2015 dated 12.11.2015 recorded that the applicant had not disclosed the reasons for delay in their applicant. Learned authorised Representative of the applicant sought time to explain the delay. 2. Today Shri Ashfak I. Khatri, Proprietor of the applicant appears in person and placed a letter dated 07.12.2015 explaining the reasons for delay as under:- “1. on account of large pre-occupation with export activity. 2. constant rejection of legitimate case by Commissioner and Appellate Commissioner on account of lack of accountability under regime of CBEC with penalizing of bonafide appellant, through unnecessary imposing of hefty fine and penalty, while allowing customs officials to go scot-free in the same breathe, New Delhi making the appellant absolutely nervous for filing further appeals under our present judicial systems of our country.” 3. The reasons for delay explained by the applicant is mainly on account of preoccupation with export activity. The reasons for delay explained by the applicant is mainly on account of preoccupation with export activity. In our considered view, the delay of filing appeal cannot be condoned on the ground of pre-occupation in the business. We find that there is gross negligence/or in action on the part of the applicant and therefore, the delay of filing appeal cannot be condoned. 4. In view of the above discussions, we reject the application for condonation of delay of filing appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed.” 8. It appears that later, a Rectification Application No.10445 of 2016 in the Customs Appeal No.11710 of 2015, came to be filed by the appellant-herein before the Tribunal. The said rectification application came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 27th March 2017, which reads thus : “Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the applicant/appellant submits that they wish to withdraw the Miscellaneous Application (ROM). Ld. A.R. for Revenue has no objection. 2. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed being withdrawn.” 9. It appears that the applicant thereafter, filed ROA application. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 30th October 2018, which reads thus:- “The ROA application filed by the applicant for restoration of appeal which was dismissed as the COD application was rejected on the ground that proper reason was not given. 2. Sh. R. Subramanya Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that COD application was rejected on the ground that proper reason was not given. 3. Considering the submission of Ld. Counsel, we find from the order of COD application, the Bench has considered the reasons, thereafter rejected the COD application. Therefore, there is no change in circumstances or new facts brought on record. Therefore, there is no reason for disturbing the order passed by the Bench in COD application. Accordingly, the ROA application is dismissed.” 10. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal, declining to condone the delay, the appellant has come up with the present Tax Appeal. 11. We take notice of the fact that the identical proceedings were instituted before the Tribunal by the sister concern of the appellant herein. However, in the said proceedings, the Tribunal thought fit to condone the delay vide order dated 04.06.2018 by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-. 11. We take notice of the fact that the identical proceedings were instituted before the Tribunal by the sister concern of the appellant herein. However, in the said proceedings, the Tribunal thought fit to condone the delay vide order dated 04.06.2018 by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-. The said order reads thus : “There is delay of almost one year in fling the appeal. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. 2. On perusal of the application, we find that no proper reason was cited for delay, therefore, though the applicant could not make out a proper case for condoning the delay, however to meet the ends of justice, we allow the COD application subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid within four weeks. Compliance to be made on 09.07.2018” 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that although the sufficient cause assigned may not be quite convincing, yet having regard to the merits of the main matter and also with a view to give one opportunity to the appellant to make good his case in appeal before the Tribunal, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant. 13. In the result, this Tax Appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside. The main appeal is restored to the original file of the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal shall issue Notice to the appellant for the purpose of hearing of the main appeal. We, however deem fit to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 15 days from today. 14. The questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.