Sufficient cause for delayed appeal requires explanation for the full period of delay; wrong forum alone was not enough.

Delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was condonable only on a clear showing of sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. The appellant's earlier pursuit of a revision before the wrong forum did not, by itself, excuse the later delay in approaching the correct appellate forum, and no satisfactory explanation was given for that remaining period. As the application disclosed no concrete reason for the belated filing, the Tribunal held that sufficient cause was not established and refused condonation, with the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was liable to be condoned on the facts and whether sufficient cause was shown for the belated filing.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period under the Customs Act and the Tribunal examined the explanation for delay under the provision empowering admission of a delayed appeal on sufficient cause being shown. The appellant had first pursued a revision before the wrong forum, but no adequate explanation was offered for the further delay even after the revisionary decision was communicated. The Tribunal held that mere pursuit of a wrong remedy does not, by itself, establish sufficient cause, especially where the applicant was a large exporter and the application disclosed no concrete reason for the delay in approaching the correct forum.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the application for condonation of delay was rejected, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 can be condoned only when sufficient cause is specifically shown for the entire period of delay; mere mistaken pursuit of a wrong forum, without a satisfactory explanation for the remaining delay, is insufficient.

---