Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; post-limitation requests for information did not justify late refund appeals.

Delay in filing the appeals against refund orders was not condoned because the appellants filed after the statutory three-month period and only sought further information from the adjudicating authority after limitation had already expired. The appellate authority found no satisfactory or convincing cause for the delay, and no material was shown to disturb that finding. The principle of liberal condonation where sufficient cause is established did not assist on these facts, so the dismissal of the appeals was upheld in favour of Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeals against the refund orders should be condoned.

Analysis: The appeals were filed after the statutory period of three months had expired. The explanation offered was that further information was sought from the adjudicating authority before filing the appeals, but those requests were made only after the limitation period had already run out. The appellate authority had considered the explanation and found no satisfactory or convincing cause for the delay, and no material was shown to disturb that finding. The principle that delay may be liberally condoned where sufficient cause is shown did not assist the appellants on these facts.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned, and the dismissal of the appeals was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to condone delay failed, leaving the original dismissal of both appeals undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned merely because the appellant sought additional information after limitation had expired; a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause is required.

---