Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; unexplained and inordinate delay makes a foreign exchange appeal time-barred.

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the foreign exchange statute depends on proof of sufficient cause within the prescribed limitation framework. Here, the appellant failed to state when the adjudication order was received, did not explain the length of delay, and produced no satisfactory basis for late filing. Relying on the respondent's documentary material, the Tribunal found the order had been served much earlier and the delay was ex facie inordinate and unexplained. The appeal was therefore treated as time-barred and dismissed for want of sufficient cause.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The appeal was required to be filed within the prescribed limitation period under the governing foreign exchange statute, with a limited power to entertain it beyond that period only on proof of sufficient cause. On the material placed, the appellant did not state with certainty when the adjudication order was received, did not explain the actual length of delay, and failed to furnish a satisfactory basis for the late filing. The Tribunal relied on the documentary material produced by the respondent and found that the order had been served much earlier, making the delay ex facie inordinate and unexplained.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the appeal was held to be time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal can be granted only on proof of sufficient cause, and an inordinate, unexplained delay beyond the statutory period renders the appeal liable to dismissal as time-barred.

---