ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him as being barred by limitation declining to condone the delay of 51 day sin filing the appeal which he finds “grossly due to negligence on the part of the appellant”.
2. The appeal was against the order dated 22.3.2000 of the Asst. Commissioner, indicating to the manufacturer the annual production capacity of the stenter in its factory and the consequent duty payable by it. The manufacturer had filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal E/111/2000 by its order dictated on 1.8.00 in court, holding that the order in question was passed by the Asst. Commissioner and therefore appealable to Commissioner (Appeals). Within 15 days of this pronouncement, the appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.8.2000. It will be evident that the delay in filing to the Commissioner (Appeals) is because the appellant was pursuing the appeal with the Tribunal with the mistaken impression that the was the appropriate form. The reason given for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, that the production capacity can be fixed only by the Commissioner and that the letter of the Asst. Commissioner itself is issued from the office of the Commissioner giving the impression that it was the Commissioner’s order communicated by the Asst. Commissioner is acceptable.
3. In these circumstances we condone the delay and set aside the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order. The matter is now remanded to him for disposing of the appeal on merits.