Condonation of delay requires bona fide explanation; prolonged inaction and non-compliance with pre-deposit barred restoration of appeals.

Delay in seeking restoration of dismissed service tax appeals was held not condonable where the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit direction within the extended time, allowed the orders to attain finality, and sought recall only after several years without any credible explanation. The Court applied the settled principle that condonation of delay requires diligence, bona fides, and sufficient cause; prolonged inaction, negligence, and abandonment of the remedy do not satisfy that standard. Mere later payment of the tax component was insufficient to justify revival of the appeals, so restoration was refused and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the restoration applications and in complying with the pre-deposit direction could be condoned and the dismissed service tax appeals restored.

Analysis: The appeals had earlier been dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order directing deposit of 50% of the demand. The appellant did not comply within the extended time, allowed the orders to attain finality, and approached for recall only after an unexplained delay of several years. Mere subsequent payment of the tax component did not supply sufficient cause for revival of appeals. The Court applied the settled principle that condonation of delay depends on a credible explanation showing diligence and bona fides, and that prolonged inaction, negligence, and abandonment of the remedy cannot be treated as sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable, restoration of the appeals was not warranted, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---