Condonation of delay requires a full explanation for the entire delay period; partial explanation was insufficient and the appeal failed.

Sufficient cause was not established for condonation of a 98-day delay in filing the appeal because the explanation covered only part of the delay period and left the later period unexplained. The Tribunal treated a complete and satisfactory explanation for the entire delay as necessary and found that requirement unmet. The delay was therefore not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed together with the stay application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 98 days' delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the explanation covered the period up to 28.02.2011, but no explanation was offered for the delay thereafter until the appeal was filed on 08.04.2011. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, the Tribunal held that the requirement of sufficient cause was not met.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed along with the stay application.

---