Appeal partially allowed, extension granted for deposit, compliance required.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the delay in filing the appeal being condoned. The court partially accepted the request for an extension of time to deposit the amount, extending the deadline by three months. Compliance with the modified order was required for the appeal to proceed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to tribunal orders and the court's discretion in granting extensions.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against non-compliance of deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, application for condonation of delay, extension of time to deposit the amount.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's failure to comply with an order directing the deposit of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs within a specified period. Additionally, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing a delay of 23 days, was considered. The court found the cause stated in the application to be sufficient for condoning the delay, emphasizing that justice should be advanced rather than defeated. Consequently, the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed.

The judgment further addressed the request for an extension of time to deposit the amount as per the previous order. After hearing arguments from both parties and reviewing the case records, the court decided to partially accept the request for an extension. The court modified the impugned order, extending the deposit deadline by an additional three months from the date of the judgment. The appellant was instructed to ensure compliance with the order within the specified period and report the compliance to the Tribunal. Upon compliance, the Tribunal was directed to proceed with deciding the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, with the impugned orders being modified subject to the appellant's compliance with the court's directions. No costs were awarded in this matter. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with tribunal orders, the grounds for condoning delays, and the court's discretion in granting extensions for fulfilling deposit requirements in legal proceedings.

---