Appeal maintainability before Commissioner (Appeals) upheld where Deputy Commissioner's appealable order required decision on merits.

An appeal against a Deputy Commissioner's order was maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals) because the operative order was appealable in form, even though it was based on an earlier communication declining extension of time for re-export of imported goods. The appellate authority was required to decide the dispute on merits and not refuse jurisdiction merely because the order reflected an underlying administrative communication. The jurisdictional objection was rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merits-based determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order, and whether the matter required decision on merits.

Analysis: The order challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) was an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appealable form, even though it was based on a prior communication from the Commissioner refusing extension of time for re-export of the imported goods. The basis of the decision did not alter the fact that the operative order was that of the Deputy Commissioner, and the appeal was therefore maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority ought to have examined the dispute on merits instead of declining jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---