Sufficient cause for condonation of delay requires full explanation of the delay period; unexplained gaps defeat the request.

Delay in filing excise appeals could be condoned only on proof of sufficient cause under Section 35B(5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, treated as analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant had to explain the entire period of delay, and unexplained gaps in the chronology, including the period after examination of papers and before authorisation, showed a casual approach rather than a bona fide reason. On that basis, the delay was not condoned and the condonation applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals could be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 prescribed a period of limitation for filing the appeal, while Section 35B(5) empowered the Tribunal to admit an appeal after expiry of the period only if sufficient cause for not presenting it in time was shown. The expression was treated as analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and required the applicant to explain the entire period of delay. The chronology disclosed unexplained gaps, including a substantial period after the papers were examined and before authorisation was granted, and the explanation did not account for the delay day by day. The record indicated negligence and a casual approach rather than a bona fide and satisfactorily explained delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the applications for condonation were rejected.

---