Condonation of delay based on departmental miscommunication led to rehearing of the appeal on merits.

Delay in filing an appeal should not prejudice the appellant where it resulted from incorrect departmental communication about the limitation period. The appellants relied on the covering letter accompanying the order-in-original, filed the appeal within the period stated in that letter, and acted on the department's own mistake. In these circumstances, the delay was condoned and the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to hear the matter afresh on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be condoned and the matter remanded for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay arose because the order-in-original was accompanied by a covering letter stating that the appeal could be filed within three months, whereas the actual limitation period was shorter. The appellants acted on the department's incorrect communication and filed the appeal by post within the period mentioned in the letter. In these circumstances, the appellants were not to be prejudiced by the department's mistake, and the appeal ought to have been heard on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned and the matter was required to be heard afresh on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---