ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him as barred by limitation after refusing to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal.
2. The explanation tendered to him for the delay was that the difficulty in obtaining documents necessary for the filing of the appeal. These were in the appellant’s factory, which was in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court in a suit filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad for recovery of money lent by it to the appellant. It took time to get the documents from the receiver, after the appellant unsuccessfully tried to get copies of the documents from the jurisdictional Superintendent.
3. This explanation offered by the appellant is acceptable to us. The delay is three weeks. It does take time to get the copies of the documents necessary for filing the appeal from government offices, including that of the Court Receiver. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeal) advances for not accepting the claim is that the appeal could have first been filed without these documents, which could have been furnished later. The appellant cannot be faulted for wanting to file a complete appeal; an incomplete appeal would itself have run the risk of dismissal on that score.
4. Therefore, condoning the delay, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and remand the appeal to him for disposal on merits in accordance with law.