https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50303 A 54-day delay in filing an appeal was held not to be supported by sufficient cause where the stated factory lay-off had ended well before the appeal was filed, labour problems were not linked to the entire period of delay, and the officer's claimed inadvertence showed only a casual approach. The explanation did not account for each day's delay, and the affidavit itself suggested the order was merely forgotten until later discovered while cleaning the office. On those facts, condonation was refused and the appeal was treated as barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:17:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50303 A 54-day delay in filing an appeal was held not to be supported by sufficient cause where the stated factory lay-off had ended well before the appeal was filed, labour problems were not linked to the entire period of delay, and the officer's claimed inadvertence showed only a casual approach. The explanation did not account for each day's delay, and the affidavit itself suggested the order was merely forgotten until later discovered while cleaning the office. On those facts, condonation was refused and the appeal was treated as barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50303