Condonation of delay and conditional stay granted where papers were misplaced by the excise clerk and compliance was directed.

Delay in filing the appeals was condoned because the papers were misplaced by the excise clerk and later recovered, with affidavit and documents showing the lapse was not wanton or deliberate on the proprietor's part. One stay application became infructuous after the disputed amount had already been deposited. In the remaining stay application, the applicants were directed to make a further cash deposit within the stipulated time, failing which the appeal would be liable to rejection; upon compliance, stay of recovery of the balance and waiver of recovery were granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the appeals could be condoned; (ii) whether the stay applications should be granted and on what terms.

Analysis: The delay was attributed to the excise clerk not properly attending to the papers, taking them away from the factory, and the papers being recovered later with supporting affidavit and documents. The circumstances were treated as not wanton or deliberate on the part of the proprietor, and the delays were held condonable. As to stay, one application had become infructuous because the amount had already been deposited. In the other, the applicants were directed to make a further cash deposit within the stipulated time, failing which the appeal would be liable to rejection.

Outcome: Delay in both appeals was condoned. One stay application was dismissed as infructuous. The other stay application was allowed on condition of deposit, with stay and waiver of recovery of the balance upon compliance.

---