Condonation of delay rejected after 418-day lapse was not adequately explained, leading to dismissal of the time-barred appeal.

Delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained, as closure of the mill and the absence of an appellate forum indication in the impugned order did not account for the prolonged lapse, particularly where the applicants had been in repeated correspondence with the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal therefore rejected condonation of delay, and the stay application and appeal were dismissed as time barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The applicants sought to explain the delay on the grounds of closure of the mill and absence of an indication in the impugned order as to the appellate forum. The Tribunal noted that the applicants had been in repeated correspondence with the adjudicating authority, and held that these grounds did not sufficiently account for the long delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained and the application for condonation of delay was rejected. Consequentially, the stay application and the appeal were dismissed as time barred.

---