https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93245 A delay condonation application was rejected because the appellants failed to give a sworn and verifiable explanation for the delay, despite repeated opportunities. Mere assertions that the matter had been entrusted first to one advocate and then to another consultant were not supported by affidavits from any responsible person or by a chronological account explaining the delay. In the absence of corroborative material, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, treated the appeal as time barred, and consequently rejected the stay application. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:53:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93245 A delay condonation application was rejected because the appellants failed to give a sworn and verifiable explanation for the delay, despite repeated opportunities. Mere assertions that the matter had been entrusted first to one advocate and then to another consultant were not supported by affidavits from any responsible person or by a chronological account explaining the delay. In the absence of corroborative material, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, treated the appeal as time barred, and consequently rejected the stay application. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93245