Condonation of delay and limited authorization defects rendered the departmental appeal non-maintainable.

A departmental appeal was found not maintainable because no proper condonation-of-delay application was filed and the papers contained an inconsistency in the date of communication of the impugned order. Mere mention of delay in the stay application was insufficient; the appellant was required to state the actual date of receipt and explain the delay day by day. The appeal was also held to be beyond the Commissioner's authorization, which was limited to two specified items, while the Deputy Commissioner's appeal covered additional demands and larger amounts. On these facts, the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable in the absence of a proper condonation of delay application and whether the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner remained within the scope of the Commissioner's authorization.

Analysis: The appeal papers showed a patent inconsistency in the date of communication of the impugned order, while no proper application for condonation of delay had been filed. Mere reference to delay in the stay application was held insufficient because the appellant was required to state the actual date of receipt of the order and explain the delay on a day-to-day basis. The authorization issued by the Commissioner was also found to be limited to two specific items, namely electrical switches and electronic flicker unit, but the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner covered several additional demands and substantially larger amounts. On these facts, the appeal was held to have been filed without proper constitution and beyond the authority granted.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was rejected.

---