Condonation of delay refused where late Chemical Examiner opinion was irrelevant to the battery valuation dispute.

A 28-day delay in filing a Revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation of late receipt of the Chemical Examiner's opinion did not amount to sufficient cause. The dispute concerned includibility of accessories in the value of batteries, and the lower appellate authority had already examined that question on settled precedents. The Chemical Examiner's opinion was found to have no bearing on the issue, so the delay application was rejected and the appeal could not proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 28 days in filing the Revenue appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was the late receipt of the Chemical Examiner's opinion. The issue in dispute related to includibility of accessories in the value of batteries, and the lower appellate authority had already examined the question on the basis of settled precedents. The Chemical Examiner's opinion was found to have no bearing on the issue, and the reason furnished did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal consequently failed.

---