Delay condonation fails where the Revenue had accepted the appellate order and later tried to appeal after a Supreme Court ruling.

A delay in filing an appeal will not be condoned where the Revenue had already accepted the appellate order, refund had been granted and taken, and no timely challenge was made against the earlier legal position. A later decision of the Supreme Court, by itself, was not treated as sufficient cause for reviving an inordinate and unexplained delay. The operative effect is that mere change in legal stance after an adverse judgment does not justify belated filing when the earlier order was acted upon.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that it awaited the subsequent Supreme Court ruling and had earlier accepted the appellate order with refund granted and accepted.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had already been accepted by the department and refund had been granted and taken. A later change in stance after pronouncement of a Supreme Court judgment was not a sufficient cause for filing the appeal out of time. The Revenue had not taken timely recourse against the earlier legal position, and the delay was therefore inordinate and unjustified.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected; consequently, the appeal was also rejected.

---