Condonation of delay in appeal requires judicial discretion and reasons; refusal was set aside and the matter remanded.

Refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal was held unsustainable because the explanation for delay had been offered and the appellate authority was required to exercise discretion judicially under the Limitation Act and record cogent reasons for rejecting it. The order under challenge lacked adequate reasons for disbelieving the explanation, and the factual setting that the applicant was only a transporter and the goods had already been released to the consignee supported reconsideration. The revision was allowed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits after condoning delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal was sustainable and whether the matter should be sent back for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay in filing the appeal had been explained by the applicant, and the appellate authorities were required to exercise discretion under the Limitation Act judicially and record reasons if the explanation was not accepted. The order under challenge did not disclose cogent reasons for rejecting the explanation for delay. The case was also considered in the factual setting that the applicant was only a transporter and the goods had already been released in favour of the consignee. In these circumstances, the refusal to condone delay could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The delay should have been considered on merits, and the appeal ought to have been heard afresh after condoning delay. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for fresh decision on merits.

---