https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86315 Delay in filing the appeal was not shown to be supported by sufficient cause, because the impugned order had been received in May 1993 but the appeal was filed only in October 1996 without specific reasons for the interval. Mere correspondence with the authorities was held insufficient to explain the delay, and the cited precedent was treated as factually inapplicable. Condonation was therefore refused, the application was dismissed, and the appeal did not survive. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:49:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86315 Delay in filing the appeal was not shown to be supported by sufficient cause, because the impugned order had been received in May 1993 but the appeal was filed only in October 1996 without specific reasons for the interval. Mere correspondence with the authorities was held insufficient to explain the delay, and the cited precedent was treated as factually inapplicable. Condonation was therefore refused, the application was dismissed, and the appeal did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86315