Condonation of delay allowed where late appeal was caused by bona fide reliance on incorrect legal advice and no wilful default was shown.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant showed bona fide reliance on legal advice that no separate appeal was required while an earlier appeal on the same facts and vehicle was already pending. The explanation was supported by affidavits, and the tribunal accepted that there was no wilful default, negligence or laches. Incorrect legal advice, in these circumstances, was treated as sufficient cause for the late filing, and the application for condonation was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal against the order-in-original should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained on the basis that the appellant had acted on legal advice that no separate appeal was necessary because an earlier appeal arising out of the same facts and concerning the same vehicle was already pending. The explanation was supported by affidavits, and the absence of wilful default, negligence, or laches was accepted. The incorrect legal advice was treated as a bona fide cause preventing timely filing.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the application was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---