Condonation of delay requires full explanation for the entire default period; unexplained lapse kept the departmental appeal time-barred.

A departmental appeal filed with a 76-day delay was rejected because the explanation covered only the late receipt of the authorisation order and did not explain the remaining period of default. Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause for the entire delay, and an incomplete or partial explanation is insufficient. The delay was therefore not condoned, and the appeal was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 76 days in filing the departmental appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was confined to the late delivery of the authorisation order. Even after receipt of the authorisation, further delay in filing the appeal remained unexplained. Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, and the delay must be satisfactorily explained throughout the period of default.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed as barred by time.

---