Condonation of delay rejected where internal administrative lapse and lack of due diligence explained the late excise appeal filing.

Delay in filing an excise appeal was refused condonation because the explanation showed only internal administrative lapse: the order was received by one officer, forwarded to the Vice President, and no timely follow-up was made. The absence of supervision and a functioning internal control mechanism indicated lack of due diligence. The plea that the company was sick was held irrelevant to excuse the delay. On these facts, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the excise order should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was that the order was received by one officer, forwarded to the Vice President, and no timely action was taken due to internal administrative lapse. The absence of proper follow-up, supervision, and a functioning internal control mechanism was held to show lack of due diligence. The plea that the company was sick was found irrelevant to excuse the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

---