Sufficient cause for delayed appeal filing supported condonation and restoration of the statutory appeal for merits review.

Delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was held condonable on the showing of sufficient cause under the proviso to section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The explanation that the party first sought legal advice and later pursued the proper appellate remedy was accepted, and a mere presumption about the date of service of the impugned order, unsupported by contrary evidence or postal verification, was found insufficient to defeat condonation. The statutory appeal was treated as filed in time and restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved condonation on the showing of sufficient cause under the proviso to section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether the appeal was liable to be restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The delay condonation application stated that the order was first pursued through legal advice before a representation to the Chief Commissioner was considered, and the appeal was filed only after it was realised that the proper remedy was an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The dismissal of the appeal solely on a presumed date of receipt, without contrary evidence or proper verification from the postal authorities, was found unsustainable. On the material placed with the delay application, the appellant had shown a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the appeal was treated as having been filed in time, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained restoration of the statutory appeal and a fresh consideration on merits, while the limitation-based dismissal did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is filed within the condonable period and the explanation for delay shows sufficient cause, a presumption about service of the impugned order cannot by itself defeat condonation in the absence of contrary evidence.

---