Wrong appellate forum does not justify delay where a subordinate order is merely consequential and no fresh notice was issued.

A consequential order passed by a subordinate authority in compliance with an earlier Collector adjudication had to be challenged before the Tribunal, not before the Collector (Appeals). Because no fresh show cause notice was issued and the later order merely implemented the prior decision, the appellants were expected to know the correct appellate forum. A mistaken approach to the wrong forum, even if reflected in the order's preamble, did not amount to sufficient cause for a delay of 9 months and 10 days. The delay was therefore not condonable and the condonation applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 9 months and 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned on the ground that the appellants first approached the Collector (Appeals) pursuant to the direction mentioned in the preamble of the Assistant Collector's order.

Analysis: The appeals against the Assistant Collector's orders were required to be filed before the Tribunal because those orders were passed merely in compliance with the Collector's earlier adjudication and were not independent orders. The Assistant Collector did not issue any fresh show cause notice and proceeded on the basis of the notice already adjudicated by the Collector. In such circumstances, the appellants ought to have known the correct appellate forum. The misdirection in the preamble of the order did not constitute sufficient cause for the long delay.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subordinate authority passes only a consequential order in compliance with an earlier adjudication by the Collector, the proper appellate forum is the Tribunal and a mistaken approach to another forum does not, by itself, amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

---