Minimal delay and absence of proved service can defeat rejection of an appeal on limitation grounds.

Where the record did not show prior service of the appellate order, the limitation period was to be computed from the date of receipt, and the appeal was found to have been filed within time except for a minimal delay of 10 days. The court accepted the explanation that closure of the mills delayed collection of materials for the appeal, and held that such delay could not be treated as inordinate. The rejection of the appeal and stay petition on delay grounds was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was directed to be entertained and decided according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's appeal and stay petition on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had no material to show service on the appellant prior to 27-9-2008. On the available record, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed within the period computed from the date of receipt of the order, and the delay was only 10 days. The closure of the mills also constituted a reasonable explanation for the time taken in gathering materials for the appeal. In these circumstances, the delay could not be treated as inordinate.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal for inordinate delay was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to entertain the appeal and stay petition and decide them according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not establish prior service of the appellate order and the delay is minimal with a reasonable explanation, rejection of the appeal on the ground of inordinate delay is not justified.

---