Condonation of delay in appeal denied where authorised representative existed; appeal dismissed for lack of sufficient cause.

Condonation of delay is denied where the party had an authorised representative/chartered accountant capable of filing the appeal within time, so absence of sufficient cause and negligence or inaction by the party or counsel does not excuse the delay; consequence: application for condonation dismissed and appeal dismissed as time-barred. The note emphasises that liberal construction to advance substantive justice does not extend to permitting relief where counsel's or the party's gross negligence or lack of bona fides caused delay, and that allowing time-barred appeals in such circumstances would amount to misuse of the process of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 932 days in filing the appeal under Section 86(5) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) is liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The application for condonation does not specify the actual date of receipt of the impugned order and relies on assertions of ignorance of the statutory time limit, reliance on professional representatives, and unspecified medical ailments. The record shows the appellant had an authorised representative/chartered accountant responsible for taking legal steps. The delay of 932 days is substantial and the affidavit fails to quantify the period of incapacity due to medical reasons or to demonstrate absence of negligence or inaction. Relevant precedent advocating liberal, justice-oriented construction of "sufficient cause" was examined and distinguished on the facts, while more recent authority emphasizing that parties should not be permitted to be lethargic or to misuse process was applied to the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed; the appeal is dismissed. (Decision is in favour of Revenue.)

---