Condonation of delay requires a fair hearing and a plausible explanation; refusal was set aside and the matter remanded.

Delay condonation depends on a plausible explanation and a fair opportunity to explain the cause for lateness. The appellant stated that the original order required clarification or amendment and that a written reminder to the department remained unanswered; the appellate authority rejected the delay application without giving an effective hearing. On those facts, the explanation for the 76-day delay was accepted, refusal to condone was found unjustified, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be condoned and the matter remanded for decision on merits.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had asserted a specific reason for not filing the appeal earlier, namely that the original order was said to require clarification or amendment, and that the department had not replied to the appellant's written reminder. The appellate authority had rejected the delay application without affording an effective opportunity to explain the cause for delay. In the circumstances, the explanation for the delay was found acceptable, and the refusal to condone delay was not justified. Since the appeal had not been examined on merits, the proper course was to send the matter back for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.

Conclusion: The delay of 76 days was condoned and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal according to law after hearing the appellant.

---