Delay condonation requires credible evidence of sufficient cause; unsupported claims of misplaced papers and mistaken belief were rejected.

Delay condonation before the Commissioner (Appeals) depends on a credible showing of sufficient cause supported by contemporaneous evidence. Here, the appellants' explanation that they believed the matter had lapsed after withdrawal of a second show cause notice, and that appeal papers were misplaced in counsel's office, was rejected because the order had been received, no affidavit from the advocate or junior was produced, and no steps were shown to trace the papers or obtain another copy. The cited condonation precedents were distinguished on evidence. The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), and whether refusal to condone the delay was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeals were filed after a long delay, and the explanation offered was that the appellants believed the proceedings did not survive after withdrawal of the second show cause notice and that the appeal papers were misplaced in the office of counsel. The records showed that the order had been received by the appellants and was not entrusted to counsel within the limitation period, that no affidavit from the concerned advocate or junior was produced, and that no contemporaneous steps were shown to trace the papers or obtain another copy. The Court distinguished the cited precedents on condonation because, in those cases, the advocate's negligence or the relevant facts were supported by evidence, which was absent here. The Court also noted the binding law that the appellate authority under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot extend the delay beyond the statutory limit, while also observing that the High Court's direction to consider the matter on sufficient cause did not assist the appellants on the facts.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---