https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43794 Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was held to be supported by sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the appellant had prepared the papers, arranged the bank draft and delivered them in counsel's office for filing, but the appeal was not actually filed due to inadvertence and a communication gap in the advocate's office. The court treated the lapse as attributable to counsel's office rather than the litigant and found that bona fide steps had been taken in time. The refusal to condone delay was therefore unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the delay stood condoned with a direction to register the appeal, subject to other legal requirements. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:13:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43794 Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was held to be supported by sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the appellant had prepared the papers, arranged the bank draft and delivered them in counsel's office for filing, but the appeal was not actually filed due to inadvertence and a communication gap in the advocate's office. The court treated the lapse as attributable to counsel's office rather than the litigant and found that bona fide steps had been taken in time. The refusal to condone delay was therefore unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the delay stood condoned with a direction to register the appeal, subject to other legal requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43794