Condonation of delay based on a reasonable explanation and equitable conditions, where the Tribunal failed to assess the facts independently.

Delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was held to be capable of condonation where the appellant explained that it believed the liability had been extinguished by a later legislative amendment and related administrative communication. The Court found that the Tribunal had not independently examined the facts before refusing condonation, and that the explanation was reasonable on the material placed. It further observed that the Tribunal could have balanced the equities by imposing conditions instead of rejecting the request outright. The delay was therefore condoned, subject to deposit of 25% of the principal amount within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved to be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was that the liability was believed to have been wiped off by the subsequent legislative amendment and the related administrative communication, and the Court found that the Tribunal had not examined the facts of the case independently before refusing condonation. It was held that the explanation was reasonable and that the Tribunal could have balanced the equities by imposing conditions rather than rejecting the request outright.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, subject to deposit of 25% of the principal amount in the Tribunal within the stipulated time.

---