Petitioner Maruti Udyog Ltd. was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant/respondent purchased a Maruti Esteem LX from OP-2 who is a dealer of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 4,61,327.22p. According to the complainant he had bought the vehicle for using the same as a taxi. Under the relevant rules he was entitled to exemption from excise duty which comes of Rs. 50,000/-. Respondent/complainant approached the petitioners for refund of Rs. 50,000/- but the same was not refunded. Aggrieved by this a complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint ex-parte and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant along-with interest @ 12%. Rs. 500/- were awarded by way of costs. Complainant filed an execution application in which the petitioners were served. On receipt of the summons in the execution petition, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission along-with an application to condone the delay of one year & 8 months. According to the petitioners they had never been served in the complaint as the address given in the complaint was wrong. State Commission after noticing that there was a delay of one year and 8 months in filing the appeal without condoning the delay proceeded to decide the case on merits and held that since there was no merits in the appeal the delay could not be condoned. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The delay of one year and 8 months was enormous and the State Commission should have decided either to condone the delay or not condone the delay. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission should have decided the question regarding delay either way and that the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity of contesting complaint on merits before the District Forum. Since the petitioner had not been served it has been denied the opportunity of contesting the matter on merits. He prays that the case be remanded back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission and remand of case to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the parties the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission for an afresh decision in accordance with law. State Commission should decide the plea of delay first and then proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.03.2011. Since it is an old matter we would request the State Commission to dispose this case within a period of four months from the date of first appearance.