https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369585 Condonation of a 639-day delay was refused because the applicant failed to give a credible, specific explanation for the entire period. The affidavit relied on change of panel counsel and departmental reorganisation, but did not state when the department first learned of the dismissal, a material fact for assessing delay. The Court held that a mere change of advocates does not relieve revenue officers of the duty to monitor pending litigation, and unexplained inaction showed negligence rather than sufficient cause. The motion to set aside the order rejecting the appeal was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:07:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369585 Condonation of a 639-day delay was refused because the applicant failed to give a credible, specific explanation for the entire period. The affidavit relied on change of panel counsel and departmental reorganisation, but did not state when the department first learned of the dismissal, a material fact for assessing delay. The Court held that a mere change of advocates does not relieve revenue officers of the duty to monitor pending litigation, and unexplained inaction showed negligence rather than sufficient cause. The motion to set aside the order rejecting the appeal was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369585