Inordinate delay and unmet pre-deposit conditions do not justify interference when the underlying orders remain unchallenged.

Refusal to condone an inordinate filing delay did not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 35G where the Tribunal had rejected the explanation as insufficient on facts. The challenge was to a discretionary factual finding, so the delay issue could not be reopened in further appeal. Separately, dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with a subsisting pre-deposit condition could not be interfered with because the waiver order had never been set aside. An appeal filed without satisfying that condition was treated as ineffective in law, and the dismissal followed as a necessary consequence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to condone delay of 812 days in filing the second appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law under Section 35G; (ii) Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order could be interfered with when the waiver order had not been set aside.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to condone delay of 812 days in filing the second appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law under Section 35G.

Analysis: The appeal lay only on a substantial question of law. The Tribunal had rejected the application for condonation because the explanation offered for the long delay was not accepted as sufficient cause. A challenge to such a discretionary refusal, on the facts found by the Tribunal, did not itself generate a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order could be interfered with when the waiver order had not been set aside.

Analysis: The conditional order requiring pre-deposit remained unassailed. So long as that order stood, the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance could not be faulted. An appeal filed without complying with the pre-deposit condition was treated as no appeal in the eye of law, and the subsequent dismissal followed as a necessary consequence.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition could not be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the delay and pre-deposit questions, and the impugned dismissal stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Refusal to condone an inordinate delay does not raise a substantial question of law where the explanation is rejected on facts, and a dismissal for non-compliance with a subsisting pre-deposit order cannot be interfered with unless that foundational order is first set aside.

---