https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237477 Refusal to condone an extraordinary delay in filing the appeal was upheld because the condonation application gave no credible explanation for the entire period of delay. The reasons advanced were vague, failed to disclose the steps taken during the delay, and did not account for compliance with the pre-deposit direction or the delay after the appellate order. On that record, the Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or substantial question of law, and the appeal failed. en-us Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237477 Refusal to condone an extraordinary delay in filing the appeal was upheld because the condonation application gave no credible explanation for the entire period of delay. The reasons advanced were vague, failed to disclose the steps taken during the delay, and did not account for compliance with the pre-deposit direction or the delay after the appellate order. On that record, the Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or substantial question of law, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237477