Condonation of delay granted where departmental order misled the appellant on the appeal period, with remand on merits.

Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was condoned because the appellant relied on the time-limit stated in the departmental order, which indicated that three months were available for appeal. The delay was treated as not deliberate or blameworthy, since the departmental communication was misleading and the revised limitation period was not clearly reflected in the order served on the appellant. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have been condoned where the appellant acted on the time-limit stated in the departmental order, and whether the matter should be sent back for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appellant filed the appeal beyond the curtailed limitation period but explained that the order appealed against itself stated that three months were available for filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the delay could not be treated as deliberate or blameworthy, particularly when the departmental communication was misleading and the change in the limitation period had not been clearly reflected in the order served on the appellant. The delay was therefore liable to be condoned and the appeal required consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matters were remitted for decision on merits.

---