JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal). The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case?". 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 18.05.2018. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 20.06.2018 inter alia on the ground that the appellant has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 751 days in filing the appeal. It was held by the Tribunal that if the appellant would pursue the matter before the Director General of Foreign Trade for obtaining EODC, it would have as well filed an appeal. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting the attention of this Court to the application seeking condonation of delay filed before the Tribunal, submitted that the appellant had furnished requisite documents and had made a request for issuance of EODC on 09.07.2010. Thereafter, several communications from time to time were issued and ultimately on 16.04.2018, a letter was filed before the office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Bengaluru requesting for condonation of delay for discharging the export obligation. It is submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was solely based on non-issuance of EODC. Therefore, the appellant was given an advice to file an appeal after obtaining EODC from the Director General of Foreign Trade. Therefore, the delay is caused. It is submitted that the Tribunal had a higher technical approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appellant was given an advice to file an appeal after obtaining EODC from the Director General of Foreign Trade. Therefore, the delay is caused. It is submitted that the Tribunal had a higher technical approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has supported the impugned order and submitted that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been made out. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice and the same should not be used as a penal statute to punish the erring parties. (See: ' PERUMON BHAGAVATHY DEVSWOM V. BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY LRS, (2008) 8 SCC 321 , KATARI SURYANARAYANA VS. KPOISETTI SUBBA RAO AND ORS, (2009) AIR SC 2907 and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. V. M/S GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED,2020 36 GSTL 305 ). 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case in hand may be examined. From perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it is evident that the order is solely based on non-issuance of EODC. The appellant was prosecuting the matter before the Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of EODC and therefore, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion and in the light of the aforesaid legal position, sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is made out. In the result, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by the appellant in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 7. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by the appellant in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of.