ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This case was posted for admission today, but was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both sides.
2. The department’s appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the review appeal was barred by limitation. The appeal was signed by the Assistant Commissioner on 10-10-1996, but was received in the Commissioner’s office on 21-2-1997. Revenue is relying upon a certificate from the Post Office to the effect that the registered letter purportedly containing the appeal was received by them on 10-10-1996.
3. Shri Sharma, appearing for the respondents, submits that this was letter addressed to the Superintendent and not to the Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, doubts whether the letter relevant to the case or not. As regards citations made by the department in the case of C.C.E., Madras v. Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 263 (A.P.), he submits that the delay condoned in that case are of some days only whereas in the present case it is of about 4 months.
4. I have ‘carefully considered the submissions made and have also seen the certificate given by the postal authorities. It is reasonable to accept that the certificate relates to the despatch of the papers in the present case. As regards precedent judgment, I observe that once it is felt that the delay on account of the postal authorities should not be held against the appellants, there is no need to distinguish the judgment on the basis of number of days of delay. Considering the submissions made, I find the case of the Revenue to be correct. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.