Sufficient cause for delay must explain the entire period, and unsupported belated filing will not be entertained.

A belated appeal will not be entertained unless the appellant shows sufficient cause covering the entire period of delay with a convincing and reasonable explanation. Here, the delay was attributed to the aftermath of the Ahmedabad earthquake and the claim that the order had been misplaced out of fear, but the further delay after normalcy was restored was found unreasonable and unsupported by a credible basis. The explanation therefore failed to establish sufficient cause, so the delay was not condoned. As the appeal failed on the threshold issue of delay, the connected request for waiver of deposit of the penalty was also rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation and whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of deposit of the penalty.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was founded on the aftermath of the Ahmedabad earthquake and the plea that the order had been misplaced out of fear. The time taken after restoration of normalcy was found unreasonable, and no convincing basis was shown for the further delay. The explanation did not establish sufficient cause for the belated filing.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the request for waiver of deposit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the threshold issue of delay, and the connected application for waiver of deposit also stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated appeal will not be entertained unless the appellant shows sufficient cause explaining the entire period of delay with a convincing and reasonable account.

---