Condonation of delay refused where non-availability of a certified copy did not justify prolonged inaction in a customs appeal.

A customs appeal filed with a delay of 1,280 days was not saved by the absence of a certified copy of the Tribunal's order. The Court found that the Department had not acted with due diligence, as it only exchanged letters seeking the copy and failed to explain the prolonged period of inaction after withdrawal of an earlier appeal. It held that the available true or attested copy could have been used to proceed earlier, with the certified copy filed later on appropriate extension. Non-availability of the certified copy was therefore not accepted as sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay, and the delay was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 1280 days in filing the customs appeal could be condoned on the ground that a certified copy of the Tribunal's order was not available.

Analysis: The appeal was filed without annexing the certified copy of the impugned order, and the explanation offered was that repeated efforts were made to obtain it after an earlier appeal before another High Court was withdrawn. The Court held that the subsequent period of inaction was not satisfactorily explained. It noted that the Department had not acted with diligence, had merely exchanged letters seeking the certified copy, and could have proceeded earlier on the basis of the available true or attested copy and sought appropriate extension for filing the certified copy later. The non-availability of the certified copy was therefore not accepted as a sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

---