Condonation of Delay in Excise Appeals: Tribunal's reasoned refusal will not be disturbed absent a substantial question of law.

A reasoned refusal to condone delay in filing an appeal cannot be interfered with in a Section 35G proceeding unless a substantial question of law arises. The High Court held that the Tribunal's assessment of the explanation for a delay of about 898 days was factual in nature and could not be disturbed merely because another view was possible. Authorities cited by the appellant were treated as fact-specific and not laying down any controlling legal rule. The refusal to condone delay was therefore left undisturbed, with the appellant left to pursue any other remedy available in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the Tribunal's reasoned refusal to condone a delay of about 898 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal before the High Court arose from a reasoned order of the Tribunal rejecting condonation of delay after considering the explanation offered for the late filing. The Court noted that appellate interference under Section 35G is confined to substantial questions of law and that the Tribunal's factual assessment of the explanation for delay could not be disturbed merely because a different view was possible. The decisions cited by the appellant were found to be fact-specific and not laying down a binding rule applicable to the present case.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was not liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to reopen the Tribunal's order on delay and left the appellant to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned order refusing condonation of delay cannot be interfered with in a Section 35G appeal unless it gives rise to a substantial question of law; a mere alternative view on sufficiency of explanation is insufficient.

---