https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83193 The Tribunal rejected the appellants' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient evidence to support the delay claim. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear and concrete evidence, highlighting that mere purchase of a draft for fees was not a valid reason for condonation of delay. The lack of clarity in the Vakalatnama and absence of supporting evidence weakened the appellants' case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of establishing valid reasons with substantial proof when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:13:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83193 The Tribunal rejected the appellants' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient evidence to support the delay claim. The Tribunal emphasized the need for clear and concrete evidence, highlighting that mere purchase of a draft for fees was not a valid reason for condonation of delay. The lack of clarity in the Vakalatnama and absence of supporting evidence weakened the appellants' case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of establishing valid reasons with substantial proof when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83193