ORDER : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-company, said to be engaged in manufacture of Veneer falling under Chapter 44 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, has questioned the order dated 28-1-2016 as passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong ['the Commissioner'] on its application for 'Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition' in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 (as amended). 2. By the order impugned, the Commissioner has rejected the application so made by the petitioner only on the ground that the same was barred by time-limit, while observing as under :- ".......Discussion And Findings 5. In this instant case, it is noticed that the applicant has filed their said application on 1-10-2015 and the relevant documents, namely a copy of the audited Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2014-15, statement of Raw material consumption, Sales Registers for the Financial Year 2014-15, Raw Materials purchase statement and the Auditor's Certificate of the value addition issued by their statutory auditor showing the rate of their value addition as 54.40%, were submitted to this office on 16-10-2015 as is evident from the Commissioner ate date-receipt stamp embossed on the Applicant's letter. 6. Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 stipulates that the manufacture may apply to the commissioner of Central Excise or the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit of the manufacturer for fixation of a special rate representing the actual value addition in respect of any goods manufactured and cleared under this Notification, if the manufacturer finds that the actual value addition in the production or manufacture of the said goods is at least 115 percent of the rate specified in the said Table and for the said purpose, the manufacturer may make an application in writing to the Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, not later than the 30th day of September in a financial year for determination of such special rate, stating all relevant facts including the proportion in which the material or components are used in the production or manufacture of goods. Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, may if he is satisfied that the manufacturer was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the aforesaid time, allow such manufacturer to make the application within a further period of thirty days. 7. The applicant failed to show any convincing cause/reason which prevented them from submitting the application on time and therefore, does not deserve extension of time for further period of thirty days for making application for the Financial Year 2015-16. 8. In view of the above the application for special rate for the Financial Year 2015-16 is liable for rejection. ORDER The Applicant's application for fixation of Special Rate under Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 (as amended) for the Financial Year 2015-16 is accordingly rejected as it is barred by time limit." 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact, the requisite application for Special Rate was submitted on 30-9-2015 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong but then, it was noticed that the application ought to have been filed in the Commissioner's office. According to the petitioner, when the steps were taken for filing of the application in the Commissioner's office on 30-9-2015, the Receipt Section had already closed and therefore, the application could be filed only on 1-10-2015. Further, according to the petitioner, the submission of Audited Balance Sheet, Value Addition Certificate, Sale and Purchase Registers took a little extra time for the same being with their Charted Accountant/Auditor; and the delay on the part of the Chartered Accountant was due to extension of due date of Income Tax return up to 31-10-2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that there had not been any intentional delay on the part of the petitioner and in any case, when the application was filed on 1-10-2015 and the requisite documents were also filed on 16-10-2015 while explaining the delay, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong ought to have entertained the application so as to consider the matter on merits in terms of the proviso to the Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007. The learned counsel would also submit that the order impugned, having been passed without considering the matter on merits and even without considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner for delay, remains an unreasoned one and deserves to be set aside on this count alone. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, though in the first place attempted to support the order impugned but then, in all fairness, frankly submitted that the reasons for not accepting the cause assigned by the petitioner towards delay and not considering the matter on merits are, of course, not available in the order impugned. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are clearly of the view that the Commissioner of Excise, Shillong has failed to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner and has also failed to consider the requirements that ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. 7. The petitioner had given out all the reasons in a forthright manner where for the application could not be filed in the office of the Commissioner by 30-9-2015. In any case, the application was indeed filed in the office of the Commissioner on 1-10-2015. So far supporting documents are concerned, mere non-filing of the same with the application could not have been taken as fatal to the cause nor the application could have been declined on that ground alone, particularly when such documents/records were also presented on 16-10-2015, i.e., within 15 days of moving the application and well within the period of 30 days, the extent to which the Commissioner has been authorised to condone the delay and to consider the matter on merits. In the totality of circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly not attempted to justify the order impugned that does not carry the requisite reasons and requisite consideration. 8. In view of what has been discussed and observed herein above, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the application moved by the petitioner deserves to be restored for consideration of the Commissioner concerned on merits. 9. 8. In view of what has been discussed and observed herein above, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the application moved by the petitioner deserves to be restored for consideration of the Commissioner concerned on merits. 9. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner that the impugned order dated 28-1-2016 is set aside; and the application moved by the petitioner for Fixation of Special Rate, as presented on 1-10-2015 and supported by the documents/records filed on 16-10-2015, is restored for consideration of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and for disposal by way of a reasoned and speaking order on merits. 10. The petitioner through his counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Commissioner concerned in the first place on 7-9-2016. 11. No costs.