Limitation for appeal must exclude time spent before the wrong forum, with merits heard by the proper appellate authority.

An appeal against a Superintendent's communication was stated to be maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appellate authority was required to examine the dispute on merits rather than reject it on a mistaken view of limitation. Time spent pursuing the matter before the Tribunal was not to be counted against the appellant when considering condonation of delay before the proper appellate forum. The dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was therefore set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to hear the appellant on the letter and other issues raised before passing a fresh order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the ground of delay, and whether the period during which the matter remained pending before the Tribunal was to be excluded while considering condonation of delay.

Analysis: The appeal had first been taken to the Tribunal and was then directed to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with an application for condonation of delay. The period spent before the Tribunal could not be counted against the appellant for deciding limitation before the proper appellate authority. An appeal against the Superintendent's communication was maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appellate authority was required to consider the matter on merits instead of rejecting it on a mistaken view of limitation.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to hear the appellant on the letter as well as on other issues raised and then pass a fresh order.

---