Condonation of inordinate delay denied where vague explanation, lack of bona fides, and deliberate pursuit of writ remedies defeated sufficient cause

Condonation of an inordinate 3187-day delay in filing an appeal under section 35B of the Central Excise Act was refused because the explanation was vague, unsupported by a proper date-wise or month-wise account, and showed deliberate inaction. Repeated pursuit of writ proceedings despite the available statutory remedy, together with non-disclosure of the appeal before the High Court and absence of bona fides, demonstrated gross negligence rather than sufficient cause. The miscellaneous application was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 3187 days in filing the appeal under section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The application for condonation was found to be vague and initially contained neither the period of delay nor any proper explanation. The later affidavit did not furnish a satisfactory date-wise or month-wise account of the delay. The conduct of the appellant in repeatedly pursuing writ proceedings despite the availability of the statutory remedy, coupled with failure to disclose the statutory appeal before the High Court and the absence of bona fides, showed deliberate inaction rather than sufficient cause. The settled principle applied was that delay may be condoned only where the explanation is bona fide and supported by sufficient cause, and not where there is gross negligence or lack of bona fides.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned. The miscellaneous application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

---