Condonation of delay was refused where the Revenue failed to show sufficient cause for a late appeal on Special Additional Duty.

Condonation of a 45-day delay in filing the appeal was refused because the Revenue failed to establish sufficient cause. The explanation based on alleged confusion from conflicting Tribunal rulings on Special Additional Duty for Nepalese-origin imports was rejected, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on exemption under the relevant customs notifications, not on any Tribunal ruling barring levy. The application was also unsupported by an affidavit explaining the delay. The appeal was therefore held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 45 days' delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay rested on alleged confusion arising from conflicting Tribunal decisions on levy of Special Additional Duty on Nepalese-origin imported goods. That explanation was rejected because the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had not proceeded on any Tribunal ruling barring levy of SAD, but on the exemption available under the relevant customs notifications. The application was also unsupported by any affidavit explaining the cause of delay, and the grounds furnished did not establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

---