Sufficient cause for excise appeal delay was not shown, so condonation was refused under the statutory limitation scheme.

Delay in filing an excise appeal was held not to be condonable without sufficient cause under the statutory limitation scheme in Section 35B(3) and Section 35B(5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the Department's explanation, limited to internal file movement and routine processing within the Collectorate, did not show diligence, urgency, or circumstances beyond its control. Cited authorities were distinguished because the present matter involved a statutory time limit and an inadequate explanation for delay. Condonation was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 12 days in filing the excise appeal was liable to be condoned on the basis of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that under the statutory scheme of Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an appeal had to be filed within the prescribed period and delay could be condoned only if sufficient cause was shown under Section 35B(5). The explanation offered by the Department was confined to internal movement of the file and routine processing within the Collectorate. The Tribunal found no material showing diligence, urgency, or circumstances beyond the Department's control sufficient to justify the delay. The cited authorities were distinguished on the footing that the present case involved a statutory limitation period and an unconvincing explanation for delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not supported by sufficient cause and condonation was refused.

---