Condonation of delay favours merits disposal where a short delay is plausibly explained and no hearing was given.

A short delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation was considered plausible, the dispute was treated as arguable, and no prior hearing had been afforded before dismissal on limitation. The Tribunal set aside the limitation-based rejection and remitted the matter for disposal on merits after hearing the appellants, emphasising that a small delay should not defeat substantive adjudication where the explanation is reasonable and procedural fairness is lacking.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the dismissal of the appeal on limitation sustained.

Analysis: The delay was relatively short and arose from the appellant's to explain its case before the authorities. The Tribunal treated the dispute as arguable, found the explanation for the delay not unreasonable, and noted that no hearing had been given before the appeal was dismissed on limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the dismissal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remitted for disposal on merits after hearing the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in obtaining restoration of the matter for merits consideration, with the earlier limitation-based rejection displaced.

Ratio Decidendi: A short delay supported by a plausible explanation and coupled with absence of prior hearing should be condoned so that the dispute may be decided on merits rather than being rejected on limitation alone.

---