Appealability and natural justice require a speaking order on maintainability before rejecting a delayed appeal.

A Superintendent's communication informing the appellant that the appeal was beyond the condonable period was treated only as a letter, not an appealable speaking order. The question of admissibility and maintainability had to be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) through a proper order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing. As no personal hearing was afforded before declining to condone the delay, the communication could not be sustained. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh consideration of admissibility and maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned communication was an appealable order and whether the matter required remand for a fresh decision on admissibility and maintainability after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The impugned communication was only a letter issued by the Superintendent informing the appellant that the appeal had been filed beyond the condonable period and could not be entertained. A decision on whether an appeal is maintainable had to be taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the form of an appealable and speaking order. Since no personal hearing had been granted before declining to condone the delay, the decision could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the admissibility and maintainability of the appeal afresh after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---