Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; an unexplained six-year delay could not be excused on oversight alone.

CESTAT Ahmedabad refused to condone a delay of about six years in filing appeals against two respondents because the revenue gave no sufficient cause beyond a bare claim that one appeal had been filed by oversight. The Tribunal held that condonation depends on a factual showing of sufficient cause, and the mere status of the applicant as the Government does not excuse an otherwise unexplained delay. It also rejected reliance on the procedural rule for a single appeal, since the record showed that no composite appeal had actually been filed against all respondents. The applications were rejected and the appeals did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of about six years in filing the appeals against two respondents, and whether the plea that only one appeal had been filed by oversight under the tribunal procedure rules justified condonation.

Analysis: The applications disclosed no explanation beyond a bare statement that one appeal had been filed through oversight and separate appeals against the other respondents were omitted. The Tribunal held that condonation of delay can be granted only when sufficient cause is shown on the facts, and that the mere fact that the applicant is the Government does not by itself justify an otherwise unexplained delay. The reliance on the rule permitting one appeal by the Commissioner was found to be of no assistance because the record showed that no composite appeal had in fact been filed against all respondents.

Conclusion: The revenue failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The applications were rejected and the appeals did not survive.

---