Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and full explanation of delay; shortness or inadvertence alone is not enough.

Unexplained delay in filing a customs appeal cannot be condoned merely because it is short or described as inadvertent; Section 129A(5) requires sufficient cause for the entire period of delay, and every day's delay must be explained. The length of the delay by itself is immaterial, and the merits of the appeal are irrelevant at the stage of condonation. As the application did not account for the relevant period, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of inadvertence and the shortness of the delay.

Analysis: The application did not explain the delay for the relevant period. The explanation of inadvertence was treated as insufficient, because condonation requires sufficient cause and every day's delay must be explained. The length of the delay by itself was held to be immaterial, and the merits of the appeal were held not to be relevant while deciding condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned; the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold for want of explained delay and was disposed of as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned merely because it is short or attributed to inadvertence; sufficient cause must be shown and the delay must be explained for the entire period.

---