Satisfactory explanation for delay is essential to admit a delayed appeal; without it, dismissal follows and merits must independently justify interference.

A satisfactory explanation for delay is essential to admit a delayed appeal; absence of such explanation justifies refusal of condonation and dismissal of the appeals on that ground. Separately, appellate interference requires demonstrable substantive defect in the Tribunal's order; where no sufficient substantive ground is shown, the appellate court will not disturb the Tribunal's conclusions and dismisses the appeals on merits. Both grounds operated here to finally dispose of the appeals and any pending applications.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be entertained despite a gross unexplained delay of 236 days; (ii) Whether the appeals merit interference on merits with the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13-03-2025.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals should be admitted notwithstanding a gross unexplained delay of 236 days by the appellant.

Analysis: The appeals were filed with a delay of 236 days and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The legal framework requires a satisfactory explanation to condone delay before an appeal is admitted; unexplained or inadequately explained delay militates against exercise of appellate discretion to entertain the appeal. The Court addressed whether the explanation furnished met that requirement and found it lacking.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay; condonation is refused.

Issue (ii): Whether, apart from delay, interference with the Tribunal's common impugned order dated 13-03-2025 is warranted on merits.

Analysis: The Court examined whether there were substantive grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. After consideration, no sufficient ground was found to disturb the Tribunal's conclusions; the appeals do not demonstrate merit warranting interference with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on merits; no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are finally dismissed both for failure to satisfactorily explain the delay and for lack of merit, and pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant seeks admission of a delayed appeal, a satisfactory explanation for delay is essential and absence thereof justifies dismissal; additionally, absent substantive defect in the Tribunal's order, appellate interference is not warranted.

---