Inordinate delay condonation fails where a department offers only vague internal processing as explanation for late filing.

Inordinate delay by a department in filing a Central Excise appeal was not condoned because the explanation was neither reasonable nor bona fide. The Court held that merely stating that the matter moved through internal approval levels, or that prior rectification and writ proceedings were pursued, does not satisfactorily explain the long unexplained intervening period. Government litigants remain bound to show acceptable cause for extraordinary delay, and routine references to procedural red tape are insufficient. The motion for condonation was therefore rejected, and the appeal was not permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 825 days in filing the Central Excise appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was that the department had been prosecuting a rectification application and then a writ petition, but there was no satisfactory account for the long intervening period after dismissal of the rectification application. The affidavit attributed the delay to internal processing through several levels of approval in government offices, but the explanation was found to be vague and unsatisfactory. The Court applied the principle that governmental bodies must furnish reasonable and acceptable cause for delay and cannot rely on routine references to procedural red tape as a justification for inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the motion was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not permitted to proceed, as the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay by a department is not liable to be condoned unless supported by a reasonable, acceptable and bona fide explanation; a vague reference to internal procedural formalities is insufficient.

---