Limitation for appeal includes corrigendum enhancing duty demand, and delay may be condoned after bona fide writ proceedings.

A corrigendum enhancing the duty demand was treated as part of the original order for computing limitation, so the appeal period was assessed from that composite order. Because the appellant pursued writ proceedings and then promptly approached the appellate authority after the High Court declined interference on the ground of an alternative remedy, the delay was considered condonable. The appeal was therefore maintainable, and the matter was directed to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the delay in filing it ought to be condoned in view of the corrigendum enhancing the duty demand and the appellant's pursuit of writ proceedings.

Analysis: The corrigendum increasing the duty demand was held to form part of the original order for the purpose of computing limitation. On that basis, the appeal filed after the dismissal of the writ petition was within the condonable period. The appellant had promptly approached the appellate authority after the High Court declined interference on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, and the delay was treated as deserving condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was held maintainable; the matter was directed to be decided on merits.

---