Condonation of delay rejected where no sufficient cause or bona fide belief justified late filing of the appeal.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown within the limitation period. The assessee's explanation that it awaited an appealable order and acted only after correspondence with the authorities was rejected, as there was no evidence of prior dialogue preventing timely filing and no cause arising within time. The Tribunal treated the assessment made on RT 12 returns under Rule 173F and Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules as a statutory order requiring the prescribed remedy to be pursued within the limitation period. The plea of bona fide belief was also rejected, and the appeals failed with the refusal to condone delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause and bona fide belief.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The explanation offered for the delay was that the assessee awaited an appealable order and acted only after correspondence with the authorities. The Tribunal found no evidence of any prior dialogue that prevented filing within time, and no cause arising within the limitation period was established. It also held that the assessment made on RT 12 returns under Rule 173F and Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules was a statutory order against which the assessee was expected to pursue the prescribed remedy within time. The plea of bona fide belief was rejected, and the reliance on the cited authorities was found unhelpful on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the application for condonation was rejected. Consequently, the appeals also failed.

---