Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; repeated delay and procedural non-compliance justified refusal to interfere.

Repeated delay at successive stages, together with procedural defects such as lack of proper authorisation and non-payment of court fees, did not establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay in customs appeals and revision. The petitioners' claim that they were awaiting clarification was insufficient because the appellate remedy could have been pursued in time without waiting for that clarification. On these facts, the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was upheld and no judicial interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to condonation of delay in filing the customs appeals and revision, and whether interference with the Tribunal's refusal was warranted.

Analysis: The appeals and revision were filed after substantial delay at successive stages. The filings were also attended by procedural defects, including want of proper authorisation and non-payment of court fees. The explanation that the petitioners were awaiting clarification did not justify the failure to pursue the available appellate remedy in time, since an appeal could have been filed pending such clarification. On these facts, no sufficient cause was shown to extend limitation or disturb the Tribunal's view.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was upheld and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay repeated at successive stages, coupled with absence of sufficient cause and procedural non-compliance, does not justify condonation or judicial interference.

---