Appeal dismissed due to delay of 989 days; lack of valid reasons cited for delay

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing the lack of sufficient cause for the significant delay of 989 days. The appellant's reasons, including issues with address change and failure to track the appeal status, were not deemed valid. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's responsibility to monitor appeal progress and promptly inform relevant parties of any address changes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the failure to provide a valid reason for the delay.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to change of address, failure to track appeal status, and lack of sufficient cause for delay.

In this case, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 989 days in preferring the appeal, attributing the delay to the impugned order not being served at their updated address and the person in charge of imports leaving without handing over appeal documents. The appellant's counsel argued that the consultant appointed for the appeal did not inform them about the order, leading to a loss of track of the appeal. However, the department opposed the application, stating that the appellant did not explain each day's delay and failed to intimate the change of address to the department.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and highlighted that it is the appellant's responsibility to track the status of the appeal, especially when aware of its pendency. The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal, which was filed three years after the impugned order. It was emphasized that the appellant did not provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as they did not explain each day's delay adequately. The contention regarding the change of address was deemed invalid since the appellant had not informed the department about the address change after submitting a letter in 2012. The Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, consequently dismissing the appeal as well.

Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's duty to track the appeal status and communicate address changes to the department promptly to avoid such delays in the future.

---