Condonation of delay refused where explanations failed to cover the full period of inaction and limitation barred the appeal.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation did not account for the entire 113-day period of inaction. The applicant relied on the death of its administrative manager, disruption in handling legal and excise matters, weak finances and reduced business activity, but these circumstances were held insufficient to justify the full delay, especially as the lapse continued well beyond the manager's death. A claim that the appeal had merit did not excuse non-compliance with limitation, and the appeal was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 113 days in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for delay rested mainly on the death of the applicant's administrative manager and the consequent dislocation in handling legal and excise matters, together with asserted weak financial condition and reduced business activity. The delay, however, extended well beyond the manager's death, and the circumstances were not found sufficient to explain the entire period of inaction. The contention that the appeal had merit did not justify ignoring limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

---