Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT dismissed appeal and application for condonation of delay of 1 year 7 months, finding no sufficient cause established. While courts generally view "sufficient cause" flexibly per Supreme Court guidelines in MST. KATIJI, each day's delay requires proper explanation. Appellant failed to provide even minimal justification for the substantial delay. Tribunal emphasized that condonation powers cannot be exercised mechanically without appropriate reasons. Following recent precedent in AJAY DABRA where SC rejected financial constraints as valid grounds, and considering AP HC's position limiting condonation beyond 90 days u/s 35(1), CESTAT concluded appellant failed to discharge obligation of demonstrating sufficient cause for delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.