Condonation of delay fails where explanation is vague and unsupported, leaving appeals time-barred.

An inordinate delay of 867 days in filing appeals before the Tribunal required a showing of sufficient cause for condonation under the limitation framework. The explanation that the orders remained with the driver and were not communicated in time was found vague, unsupported by independent evidence, and unaccompanied by any contemporaneous steps showing diligence or bona fide conduct. Applying the settled principle that condonation depends on a credible and convincing explanation, and that negligence or want of bona fides defeats relief, the Tribunal held that sufficient cause was not established and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 867 days in filing the appeals under the limitation provisions governing appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the explanation offered was found to be vague, unsupported by independent evidence, and lacking any material showing diligence or bona fide conduct on the part of the assessee. The explanation that the orders remained with the driver and were not communicated in time was treated as insufficient, with no contemporaneous steps shown by the assessee to pursue the matter. Applying the settled principles that condonation depends on an adequate and convincing explanation and that negligence or want of bona fide defeats such relief, the Tribunal held that the assessee had not established sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeals were dismissed in limine as time-barred.

---