Condonation of delay refused where no credible explanation covered the entire delay and compliance gaps remained unexplained.

Refusal to condone an extraordinary delay in filing the appeal was upheld because the condonation application gave no credible explanation for the entire period of delay. The reasons advanced were vague, failed to disclose the steps taken during the delay, and did not account for compliance with the pre-deposit direction or the delay after the appellate order. On that record, the Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or substantial question of law, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to condone an -year delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal suffered from perversity or jurisdictional error and gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The application for condonation did not explain the steps taken during the entire period of delay. The reasons offered were vague and did not account for compliance with the pre-deposit direction or the delay after the appellate order. The material placed did not justify the extraordinary delay.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was upheld. No perversity, jurisdictional error, or substantial question of law was found, and the appeal failed.

---