Condonation of appellate delay accepted where bona fide belief from pending correspondence and extraordinary circumstances showed sufficient cause.

Delay of nearly 14 months in filing an appeal against duty liability under Rule 96ZP was condoned because the assessee lacked legal counsel and remained in administrative correspondence on a bona fide belief that the order would be amended. The delay was acknowledged as ordinarily excessive, but the surrounding circumstances were treated as extraordinary and sufficient cause for condonation. The decision applies the principle that appellate delay may be excused where pending correspondence and other genuine factors explain the late filing and show absence of deliberate inaction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of nearly 14 months in filing the appeal against the order fixing duty liability under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should be condoned.

Analysis: The application explained that the appellant was without legal counsel, remained in correspondence with the Commissioner in the belief that the order would be amended, and filed the appeal only after realising that no amendment would be made. The delay was described as ordinarily excessive, but the surrounding circumstances were treated as extraordinary and sufficient to justify condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the surrounding circumstances disclose a bona fide belief induced by pending administrative correspondence and other extraordinary factors constituting sufficient cause.

---