Bona fide belief and prompt action can justify condonation of delay and restoration of appellate remedies.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had sought clarification, believed the defect would be corrected, and acted promptly once informed that no further action could be taken. Those facts constituted sufficient cause, so the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. The document states that a bona fide belief created by the authority's mistaken disposal can justify condonation where the party does not remain inactive and moves promptly after the position is clarified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter remanded for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for alleged failure to comply with the stay order, but the record showed that the appellant had sought clarification and had been led to believe that the mistake would be corrected. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed promptly after the Commissioner (Appeals) indicated that no further action could be taken. These circumstances constituted sufficient cause for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained restoration of its appellate remedy, and the dispute was sent back for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the delay is explained by a bona fide belief created by the appellate authority's mistaken disposal, and the party acts promptly once informed otherwise, the delay may be condoned and the matter restored for decision on merits.

---