Appeal allowed as timely pursued rectification efforts don't count towards limitation period

The appeal was filed against an order dismissing it as untimely. The appellant argued that time spent pursuing rectification should not count towards the limitation period. The Member (Judicial) found the appellant diligently pursued remedies and was not negligent. Relying on case law, the Member (Judicial) held the appeal was not time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for a decision on merits, granting the appellant a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by remand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appellant's appeal as being filed beyond the statutory time limit. The appellant contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal, providing a detailed date chart of events leading to the filing of the appeal. The appellant argued that the time taken for pursuing rectification of mistake in the adjudication order should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The appellant relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to support their argument.

The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize that the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone a delay up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days. After hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the correspondences exchanged between the appellant and the original authority. It was noted that the appellant diligently pursued its remedy for resolving the dispute and was not guilty of negligence or lapse in delaying the filing of the appeal. The Member (Judicial) opined that the case should be governed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the time spent in perusing the matter with the adjudicating authority should be excluded for computing the limitation period. Therefore, the filing of the appeal on 03.01.2011 was not barred by limitation.

The Member (Judicial) found that the appellant's case was squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and distinguished it from another case cited by the Departmental Representative. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits, with the appellant being granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---