Tribunal allows delay in appeal filing, accepts partial deposit, and stays recovery to ease burden.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal by M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. as the initial appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The Appellants complied with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act by depositing Rs. 11 lakhs, which was considered sufficient for the appeal hearings. The Tribunal stayed the recovery of the remaining amount during the appeals' pendency to prevent additional burden on the Appellants.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, pre-deposit compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, stay of recovery during pendency of appeals.

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. The learned Advocate representing the Appellant explained that initially, they had filed an appeal within the prescribed time limit, but later realized the mistake that two separate appeals were required to be filed. The second appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay. After hearing the arguments, the delay in filing the second appeal was condoned by the Tribunal as the initial appeal was filed within the time limit specified under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.

Pre-deposit compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act:
The Advocate mentioned that both appeals were remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on merit. It was highlighted that a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs and One lakh had been made as per the Stay Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellants had already deposited Rs. 11 lakhs as per the Tribunal's direction at the time of the first hearing, which was deemed sufficient for hearing their appeals. The Tribunal considered this amount as complying with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, indicating the Appellant's compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals:
During the hearing, the Senior Departmental Representative argued that the remaining amount should be recovered. However, considering that the Appellants had already deposited Rs. 11 lakhs as per the Tribunal's direction, the recovery of the remaining amount was stayed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeals. Both appeals were scheduled for regular hearing on 1-3-2004, and the Tribunal ensured that the Appellants were not burdened with additional recovery while the appeals were being heard.

---