Court allows appeal filing delay, modifies deposit amount to Rs.40 lakhs, emphasizes Revenue's interest.

The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to pending rectification application. Regarding the pre-condition for hearing the appeal, the court modified the Tribunal's direction, reducing the pre-deposit amount to Rs.40 lakhs in installments and requiring property documents as security. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need to protect Revenue's interest while allowing the appeal to proceed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.70 lakhs as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, impugning two orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay was attributed to a pending rectification application. The Central Excise advocate waived the right to file a reply, and considering the facts presented, the court allowed the application, condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 2: Pre-condition for Hearing the Appeal:
The substantial question of law framed was whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.70 lakhs as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant, a partnership firm, was engaged in manufacturing activities, and the case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods and under-declaration of production. The Commissioner's order computed the demand, penalties, and interest against the appellant and its partners. The Tribunal examined contentions regarding administrative control and financial flow between the appellant and another partnership firm. The appellant argued against the findings, emphasizing the independence of the two entities and challenging the computation of clandestine sales.

The appellant contended that the turnover of the two partnership firms should not be clubbed, emphasizing financial difficulties and adverse market conditions affecting their business. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the appellant, noting the need to protect the Revenue's interest while allowing the appellant to press their appeal. Consequently, the court modified the Tribunal's directions, requiring the appellant to make a reduced pre-deposit of Rs.40 lakhs in installments and providing property documents as security. The court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, answering the question of law accordingly and emphasizing the protection of Revenue's interest.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of condonation of delay and the pre-condition set by the Tribunal for hearing the appeal, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the court.

---