Tribunal rejects delay excuse, upholds time-barred appeals. Appellant's explanation deemed unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay applications and subsequently dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeals, citing their consultant's forgetfulness and subsequent accident, was deemed unsatisfactory. The Tribunal noted that as a corporate entity, the appellant should have been aware of the orders received by their employee and found the claim regarding the consultant's accident lacking supporting evidence.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The applications filed by the appellant sought condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the appeals. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to their consultant, who had the necessary documents but forgot to bring them to the appellant's notice promptly. The consultant later suffered an accident, further delaying the process.

2. The learned Superintendent (AR) opposed the applications, arguing that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory. He contended that the delay was not justified based on the provided reasons.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the explanations provided in the condonation of delay applications and the submissions made by the Superintendent (AR). It was noted that the appellant, being a corporate entity, should have had knowledge of the orders received by their employee. The claim regarding the consultant's accident was found unsupported by any evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found the explanations inadequate and dismissed the condonation of delay applications, leading to the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.

---