( 1 ) HEARD learned Senior Advocate, shri K. S. Nanavati for the petitioners and shri Jitendra Malkan, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is Reliance industries Ltd. and petitioner No. 2 is its deputy General Manager. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed that impugned order dated 23. 11. 2000 (Annexure- g) passed by the Customs, Excise and (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, West regional Bench, Mumbai (for short "cegat") dismissing Application No. E/cod/ 242/2000 for condonation of delay in Appeal no. E/1254/2000 and consequence thereof dismissing appeal, be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner (Appeals) by his impugned order, dated 30. 11. 1997 (Annexure-D) disposed of in all, 27 appeals filed by the petitioner-Reliance Industries ltd. relating to eligibility of certain inputs in the MODVAT Scheme by observing that"in view, of above, I hold that Ammonia, propylene, Trisodium Phosphate, Liquid nitrogen Code IOC, Feron, Nitrogen gas, dowtherm, Methylene Chloride, Lithium bromide, Octyl Alcohol are eligible for modvat credit. Accordingly benefit of modvat credit is to be extended to these inputs. However in case of Fes Oil, Demineralized water and steam, Lubricating Oil, transformer Oil, Fatty Alcoholic non-toxic acid and Refractory Balls and Ceramic balls, i uphold the Assistant Commissioners order denying the credit. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent".

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order, appeal no. E/1254/2000 was filed before the CEGAT on 12. 4. 2000 along with an application for condonation of delay i. e. Application No. 242 /2000 as the said appeal was barred by period of limitation of 746 days. "annexure-F" is the copy of the application dated 13. 3. 2000. The said application for condonation of delay runs into, in all, 5 typed pages, but only in paras 4 (ix) and 4 (x) the petitioner company tried to explain the delay. "4 (IX) Lubricating oil being common i,i two appeals-the Commissioner (appeals) has dealt with the item holding it ineligible but has missed listing the itent and demand in rupees in second appeal, which is based on taking the credit. However, through an oversight, an appeal in respect, of the Order-in-original no. M-S/adj / 132 / 97 / B dated 13th March. 1997 confirming Show Cause notice No. R-11 / SRT-IV / MP / 20-Mudel 29/96 dated 23. 12. 1996 remained to be filed. 4 (x) The applicants submit that this fact of non-filing an appeal came to the light of the Applicants recently in the process of perusing the records on account of the impending financial year closure,"on the aforesaid two grounds, the petitioner company wanted CEGAT to condone the gross delay of 746 days in filing main Appeal No. E/1254/2000 late, but, cegat by its impugned order dated 23. 11. 2000 (Annexure-G) dismissed the said application, as it was of the opinion that no cause much less sufficient cause, was shown for cordoning such a gross delay of 746 days. Hence, this petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED Senior Advocate, Shri nanavati for the petitioner company, relying on two judgments of the Honble Supreme court of India (i) COLLECTOR, LAND acquisition, ANANTNAG AND another V/s. MST. KATIJI AND others REPORTED IN AIR 1987 SC 1353 and (ii) N. BAL KRISHNAN V/s. M krishna MURTHY REPORTED IN 1998) 7 scc 123. submitted that by not condoning delay of 746 days, learned CEGAT committed serious error of jurisdiction and thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner company in dismissing the appeal on the technical ground of limitation. He, therefore, submitted that this petition be allowed and the impugned order at annexure-G passed by the learned CEGAT be set aside and their application for condonation of delay be allowed and the learned CEGAT be directed to decide their appeal, after condoning the delay. Shri Nanavati also submitted that by refusing to condone delay of 746 days, the learned CEGAT has thrown out a meritorious appeal at the very thresho