Condonation of delay requires proven sufficient cause; uncorroborated non-receipt claim failed where service was shown at declared address.

Limitation and condonation of delay depended on proof of sufficient cause for the late filing of the appeal. Service of the show cause notice, demand notice, and adjudication order at the declared address, together with the postal acknowledgment and the appellant's earlier responses to communications at that address, supported valid service. The claim of non-receipt was uncorroborated, and the appellant showed no due diligence or bona fides to explain the extraordinary delay. On those facts, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the facts proved regarding service of the adjudication order.

Analysis: The appeal was filed many years after the adjudication order, and no application for condonation accompanied it. The record showed that the show cause notice and later demand notice were served at the same declared address, that the postal acknowledgment for the adjudication order bore a received date, and that the appellant had responded to earlier and later communications sent to that address. The claim of non-receipt was not corroborated. The circumstances did not establish sufficient cause, and the appellant had not acted with due diligence or bona fides so as to justify condonation of the extraordinary delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

---