https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152050 Condonation of a 11-day delay in filing an appeal against seizure and freezing orders under the NDPS Act was refused because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause with specific particulars. A general assertion that the matter had been entrusted to an advocate was held inadequate where no advocate was named, no supporting affidavit was filed, and no clear explanation was given for the delay or the alleged bona fide mistake. The Tribunal also treated the underlying section 68F order as an interim protective order, but found no basis for liberal exercise of discretion on vague and unsupported claims. The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:50:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152050 Condonation of a 11-day delay in filing an appeal against seizure and freezing orders under the NDPS Act was refused because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause with specific particulars. A general assertion that the matter had been entrusted to an advocate was held inadequate where no advocate was named, no supporting affidavit was filed, and no clear explanation was given for the delay or the alleged bona fide mistake. The Tribunal also treated the underlying section 68F order as an interim protective order, but found no basis for liberal exercise of discretion on vague and unsupported claims. The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 06 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152050