Sufficient cause for condonation of delay requires a credible explanation; casual delay led to limitation bar.

Delay in filing an appeal must be supported by sufficient cause to justify condonation; a prolonged delay explained only by the need to ascertain current goods prices before deciding whether to appeal was found unacceptable, as it showed negligence and casual handling of the matter. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay could not be condoned, and the appeal remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 6 months and 23 days in filing the appeal was supported by sufficient cause so as to justify condonation, and whether the appeal filed beyond limitation could be entertained.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was that the current prices of the goods had to be ascertained before deciding whether to file the appeal. The explanation was found unacceptable for such a prolonged delay, which was treated as indicating negligence and casual handling of the matter. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay could not be condoned.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay application was rejected and the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

---